LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, May 20, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Dawne Doyle, Debbie McCabe, Darrell Cole and others urging the government to
consider establishing an Office of the Children's Advocate independent of cabinet
and reporting directly to this Assembly.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 90‑The
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli): I
move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that Bill 90,
The Seven Oaks General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation le "
Motion
agreed to.
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, is there leave to revert back to
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees? [Agreed]
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Committee of Supply has adopted certain
resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to
Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the
Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today His Excellency Andre Kilian, who
is the Ambassador of the
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome
you here this afternoon.
Also with us this afternoon, seated in the
public gallery from the Kirkness Adult Learning Centre, we have 25 students under
the direction of Lenore Wiebe. This
school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Broadway
(Mr.
Also this afternoon from the Warren
Collegiate, we have sixty‑five Grade 11 students under the direction of
Mr. Jake Weibe. This school is located
in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns).
On behalf of all members, I welcome you here
this afternoon.
*
(1335)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Economic Growth
Federal Government Strategy
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board is
considered one of the most optimistic forecasting bodies in
They have stated that the recession is much
worse than they first anticipated, that the economy is taking a severe turn for
the worse, that the situation is grim, and we have seen sharp declines in the
Canadian economy and jobless rates in both March and April, something, of
course, all Manitobans are very aware of with the 17,000 fewer people working
today than there were a year ago‑‑17,000 full‑time jobs.
The Conference Board goes on further to state
that jobs are all that matter now, and they are asking for a co‑ordinated
strategy to get the economy going and to get Canadians going again.
In light of the fact that the federal budget
has obviously failed, and in light of the fact that the Premier and his colleagues
did support the Mazankowski federal budget which was tabled in Parliament a
couple of months ago, I would like to ask the Premier whether he will be
calling on the federal government to have a strategy to get Canadians working
again and to get the growth rate in
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Well,
indeed, the Conference Board pronouncement is not news that anybody would
welcome. The fact of the matter is, they
are suggesting that the recession is carrying on longer than people had
expected. I might say that their
reduction of expectations for growth this year, even though they suggest that
next year will be higher than they projected, it is still not good news.
The difficulty with getting a co‑ordinated
strategy, and I say this, Mr. Speaker, in a nonpartisan fashion, is that there are
provinces which insist on carrying out plans that we believe are fundamentally
wrong with respect to the way by which to create jobs.
As a for‑instance: This province is the only province in the country
that has been able to keep its capital spending within its budgetary context
this year equivalent to last year. In provinces
particularly that are ruled by New Democratic administrations, they are
chopping their capital spending for public works‑‑and I say this in
a nonpartisan fashion‑‑by hundreds of millions of dollars less of
public capital spending in
In fact, by doing that, they are going to cut
out the opportunity for hundreds of millions of dollars of job creation, and
that will be a serious problem for the
That is not the way to create jobs. That is the way to reduce opportunities for
employment, and we believe that it will be difficult to come up with a co‑ordinated
strategy when those provinces are going in diametrically opposed directions to
even that which is suggested by this Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer).
He has suggested that we keep up capital
spending, and we did in our budget. All
of his colleagues in government elsewhere have cut the spending and therefore
cut the opportunity for real job creation that would also provide us with
benefits in terms of improved infrastructure for our provinces.
*
(1340)
Federal Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would suggest that the Premier, who is the
head of a government that was in last place for growth in 1991, should hold his
advice to any other government of any other political stripe in any other
region of the country until his results start turning around.
Mr. Speaker, the government, this Premier
supported Don Mazankowski. This Premier
supported Brian Mulroney and his recent budget that was tabled in the House of
Commons. They stood up here, minister
after minister after minister, applauding their Tory cousins in
The pipe dream in the budget was that the
lower inflation rate in
My question to the Premier is: Is he going to call on his federal cousins to
have a job‑creation strategy that was so clearly missing from the federal
budget? Will he now admit he was wrong
in his analysis of the federal budget and now call on a job‑creation
strategy today, as the Conference Board is calling for all Canadians?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the point is that there is not
just one order of government in this country.
There must be an understanding amongst all levels of government of what
the challenge is and what the opportunities are.
Just by way of information, I read for him a
news release which was issued just this past week by the
In addition to that, if you listen to those
who are economic forecasters‑‑[interjection] Well, by way of
comparison, this province had $102.5 million last year, and it is $103 million this
year. So we held the line and slightly
increased it, Mr. Speaker. Those are
jobs that are created by that capital investment. That is long‑term infrastructure for
the benefit of the province and real job creation.
In addition to that, those provinces again,
and he can read the economic analyses of the budgets, those that are governed
by New Democrats raised taxes substantially, $1.1 billion taken out of the
economy of the
How can you have a co‑ordinated program
for economic recovery when provinces go diametrically opposed to the advice
that even this Leader of the Opposition has given? It does not make sense, Mr. Speaker.
*
(1345)
Employment Creation Strategy
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the first question, he
defended Brian Mulroney. In the second question,
he defends the mess that Grant Devine left in the
Mr. Speaker, since our budget was tabled two
months ago, every bank and every economic forecast has been downgraded for the
The province is also off on its unemployment
predictions and, unfortunately, it is not going in the right direction. We now have 17,000 fewer people working today
in April of 1992 in full‑time jobs than we had working 12 months ago in
the
My question to the Premier is: Given that this will have a dramatic impact
on revenues, given that this will have a dramatic impact on economic
development and growth, it will have a dramatic effect on businesses, on
people's incomes, et cetera, what mid‑term correction is this Premier
going to make in terms of his budget predictions that are all wrong right
now? What mid‑term correction is
he going to make to heed the advice of the Conference Board of
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): It
is pretty obvious that the Leader of the Opposition does not do a good deal of
research or investigation. He would know
that the Conference Board and every major bank in its forecast has downgraded
the entire country in their expectations.
The
Now, that does not make us happy, Mr. Speaker,
but it is evidence that what is happening is endemic right across the country. This is not something that you try to make
cheap politics on in this Question Period every day.
This is a national problem. This is a national recession and one has to
deal with it as a problem that requires long‑term solutions, not short‑term
cheap tricks here in this Legislature by the Leader of the Opposition. That is why this provincial government has
committed to spend in capital works, including the Crown corporations, $1
billion this year. That is why in direct
provincial expenditure out of the government, over $300 million, whereas all of
those provinces that are represented by his colleagues as New Democrats are
reducing capital spending, reducing job creation and reducing economic activity
in their provinces. We do not think that
is the way to go, Mr. Speaker.
Justice System
Charging Directive
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The inquest into the murder‑suicide of
Mr. and Mrs. McKay concluded that the murder‑suicide could have been
prevented. The inquest concluded that
the police department, as one of the recommendations, misinterpreted the
charging directive of the Department of Justice.
Can the Justice minister indicate to the House
today whether or not that directive has been clarified to ensure that police departments
across the
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Acting Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as
notice on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae).
Mr.
Chomiak: My
supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is to the same minister. Can the minister also confirm that since the
same recommendation was in the Pedlar report which occurred since these
tragedies, that this directive has been issued and has been clarified across
the
Mr.
Manness: Mr.
Speaker, I will not confirm any portion of the member's question, and I will
take that question as notice also.
Pedlar Report
Recommendations
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My
final supplementary to the same minister is:
Since the response of the government to the Pedlar commission was to set
up a committee to set priorities to study the Pedlar commission, can the
minister ensure that all of the recommendations in the inquest, many of which
are contained in the Pedlar report, are instituted, not tomorrow, not the day after,
but immediately to prevent another tragedy?
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Acting Minister of Justice): I cannot ensure what the member wishes, Mr.
Speaker, but I will take that question also as notice.
*
(1350)
Health Care System
Reform Monitoring Co-ordination
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Health
unveiled a health reform package, one which in principle we support to a very
large degree because we think it is essential for the appropriate delivery of
health care in the
We have looked at the monitoring positions
that have been outlined by the minister, and we find four. On page 17 it says the Centre for Health
Policy will evaluate the effectiveness of health services. On page 32, an appropriate access report will
look at the management of urgent referrals.
On page 33, a consultant will work with Winnipeg/Brandon Inter‑Hospital
Medical Staff Council, and on page 37, we have another review mandate, this
time which will look at resulting health outcomes.
My question is to the Minister of Health.
If there are at least four mandates for
different referrals, where is the confidence to be found in the public that
there will be a communication and liaison between these four committees? When
will they report effectively to the public in the
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the four areas of investigation
deal with four processes of reform, all essential to achieving a more effective
use of our $1.8‑billion budget in health care, through the varying
analysis structures that my honourable friend referred to.
There is also a fifth one that possibly was
not as evident as it should have been in the strategy paper, that being a
liaison with the Centre on Aging at the
Mr. Speaker, each of those groups has a
mandate to deliver information, analysis and underpinning of strategy announced
in the action plan that was tabled on Thursday, and each of those group's
recommendations to government will naturally become part of the public
information because we anticipate their recommendations will be part of the
implementation process over the next two years.
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr.
Speaker, there is no formalized liaison process of one mandated review agency
with another. For example, surely the
group that is examining waiting lists should be working quite closely with the
group that is studying the appropriateness of hospital admissions. The group that is monitoring health outcomes
should surely be working with the group that is studying ways to fund
hospitals.
Will the minister ensure that there is a
regular liaison process going on between these review groups? Will he ensure that they will make a public
presentation so that we will know not only what they are each doing
individually, but what they are doing in consultation with one another?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly why this province was able to table the most
comprehensive strategy on reform of the health care system in
Part of the public communication, for
instance, of the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation has been a number of
ministerial statements to this House, complete with follow‑up briefings
for all members of the Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that this will
continue, because it has helped significantly in an understanding of the
challenge before us‑‑similarly, an open process at the
*
(1355)
Waiting Lists
Review
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, one of the review groups which
he talks about is the Appropriate Access Review Group, and they have indicated
that they are going to review the needs for orthopedic surgery, for cardiovascular
surgery and for cataract surgery, all areas which we know have had long waiting
lists in the
However, there are two other areas that are
not listed in the action plan of the government. One is those that need consultation with a
rheumatologist, those suffering from arthritis, and the other is the many
children, in particular, who have great need for speech therapy.
Can the Minister of Health tell us if he will
now add those two to this access review group, so that we can come up with some
solutions to their problems as well?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I know my honourable friend will
have supported the 20 percent increase in office visit fee schedule to
rheumatologists, which was part of the settlement with the MMA some year and a
half ago, in an effort to recruit and enhance the numbers of rheumatologists
that we have available for service in the
Mr. Speaker, similarly, we have put additional
resources into speech language pathology, and I know my honourable friend and her
party endorses that and supports that direction, but the specific
appropriateness of review committee, chaired by Dr. Naylor out of
Mr. Speaker, I want to simply close by saying
that, as stated in the document, waiting lists for cardiac surgery have gone
down significantly over the last 18 months.
Foreign Domestic Workers' Program
Labour Law Coverage
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): One of the problems facing foreign domestic
workers in
The federal government, when it changed the
domestic workers program, said that they would be working with provincial governments
to ensure that they are covered under our labour laws.
My question is for the minister responsible
for Citizenship. What progress has been made with ensuring that domestic
workers in
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for Radisson for that question. It is certainly a very apt question on
the issue, and she has identified partially correctly the exemption with
respect to domestics.
I would point out to her as well that under
our current employment standards legislation that has been in place in this province
for a number of decades, there are no provisions for sick leave, for example,
for any employee.
So there are a number of issues that have to
be dealt with in our current round of discussions with the Labour Management Review
Committee. Some of these were flagged,
and I know that this committee has an interest in considering some of these
areas over the next year.
Minister's Consultations
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): My supplementary question is for the minister
responsible for Citizenship.
Why has she not gotten back to the groups that
are advocating in this province on behalf of domestic workers to explain to
them the results of the communication she has had with the federal government
regarding these issues? Why has she not
gotten back to these groups?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I met with those organizations
that do represent domestic workers in the
I spoke, and she was there to hear me speak
and indicate quite clearly that I believe domestic workers play a very important
role in the life and in the community in
*
(1400)
Government Access
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the minister
is getting back to the groups‑‑
Mr.
Speaker:
Question, please.
Ms.
Cerilli: Can the
minister inform the House where these groups should call, which department in
government? Which area in government
should these people call to find out what the government is doing, since the
minister will not‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The question has been put.
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): I just read in my correspondence this week a
thank you letter from the Mary Poppins Group that was expressing their thanks
for the contribution that this government has made in supporting their efforts,
so I have difficulty understanding where the question is coming from and where
she is getting her information, Mr. Speaker.
I will continue to meet, as will officials
within my Citizenship branch, within my Women's Directorate and within the Multiculturalism
Secretariat, and continue to dialogue with my colleague the Minister of Labour
(Mr. Praznik) on issues that do affect domestic workers.
Health Care System Reform
Home Care Program
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
I want to ask specifically about home care,
when in the time this minister has been responsible for health care, the number
of people served by home care under this government has declined in direct
proportion to the number of people who have increased in our population over
the age of 65.
I want to ask the Minister of Health: How is it health care if we are not even
increasing home care services to reflect increases in our aging
population? When are we going to see‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member has put
her question.
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I recognize my honourable friend
has difficulty in agreeing with some of the positions placed in the public with
this document by this government.
I quite frankly, Sir, was about to seek out
the quotable quotes which were used on Thursday last, wherein former Ministers of
Health whom my honourable friend sat with say they would have loved to have
tabled a document like this, but I will not get into that kind of reversal of
position by the NDP from government to opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I refer my honourable friend to
page 14 of the strategy paper where it deals specifically with the numbers of beds,
the numbers of personal care homes and the waiting list for placement in
personal care homes, all of which have gone down in these last six years, fours
years of which we have been in government, funding the Continuing Care program
at significantly greater increases than any other portion of the department,
and it says and I will quote to my honourable friend: "The over 75 age group has increased
from 4.8 percent to 5.5 percent of the population. Both active treatment bed ratios and PCH bed
ratios have declined between '85 and '91."‑‑four years of
which we have governed. "PCH
waiting lists have also declined indicating the impact of Home Care."‑‑i.e.,
the positive impact of home care, Sir.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: In
contrast to that rhetoric, I would like to table a chart, Mr. Speaker, which I
would like all members in this House to read because it shows that‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. Does the honourable member have
a question? Kindly put your question
now, please.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Considering this table showing a drop of over
2,000 cases of home care during this minister's‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Question,
please.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Could the minister indicate when we will see the
breakthrough, when we will see the plan of action to make us believe that there
is a true community‑based Home Care program in place to which Manitobans,
particularly our senior population, can have faith and trust in?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, I am rather puzzled at my honourable friend's lack of knowledge of a
program of home care. It has always been
a community‑based program. Home
care always provides services in an individual's home. The success of that over the last six years
is demonstrated on page 14.
That is exactly why we placed not $1 million
more, not $2 million more, but $7 million more money in the Continuing Care program
this year to serve more Manitobans in their home, closer to the home, to
prevent, curtail and shorten institutional stays for seniors.
Mr. Speaker, that is a significant increase in
the budget to provide a significant increase in the number of services that Manitobans
will enjoy through the Continuing Care program to prevent their
institutionalization, to provide that care closer to home in their community.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: How can the minister justify the $7‑million
so‑called increase which will, in the minister's own figures, get us up
to 24,000 clients served under Home Care, still 1,000 short from the numbers of
clients served in 1987? How does he say
that this is health care reform‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, there are two answers to that question. First of all, the success of the 1985 program
introduced by, guess who, the New Democrats.
I have given them credit for this program. It is called Support Services for Seniors,
wherein community resource councils, through a grant, a modest grant from the
taxpayers from the
That program was introduced by the New
Democrats, and a number of individuals have had those services replaced by community
council resource‑based services in the community, Mr. Speaker, exactly
the designed intent of the program. That
is the first answer.
The second response is that in the provision
of $62 million of home care budget this year, we will provide incredibly
greater numbers of hours of intensive services which has allowed us over the
six‑year period of time referred to in this program to defer admissions
to personal care homes, to have our waiting lists for personal care home
placements decline and to have the number of personal care home beds in use
decline relative to the growth in population, a complete success of the
program, Sir.
Conawapa Dam Project
Delay‑Net Savings
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
responsible for Manitoba Hydro.
The member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) and
the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) have recently in this House, as well as
other members in both other parties, sung the praises of the Conawapa project. They have said, build it bigger, build it sooner,
this despite‑‑[interjection] The member for Point Douglas has said
it repeatedly‑‑build, build, build, anytime, anywhere. Of course, I
would not want to read his speech in the House to members, but I do recommend
it to all members.
Mr. Speaker, the revised predictions of
Manitoba Hydro suggest that the power will not be needed in 1999 by Manitobans,
as they told the PUB, but rather will not be needed until the year 2011. Mr. Zaleski told the Public Utilities Board‑‑and
I want to ask the minister to comment on his speech‑‑if recognized soon
enough and the need for the new generation is moved to beyond 2000, Conawapa
and Bipole III could be delayed with significant net savings over current
expectations.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister
responsible for Manitoba Hydro is: Why
is he insisting on sacrificing the net savings that Mr. Zaleski told the Public
Utilities Board about?
*
(1410)
Hon.
James Downey (Minister responsible for The
Two things have happened following the past
administration, two major events. One is
that the Conawapa project will go before full hearings of the Manitoba Clean
Environment Commission, which is the responsible thing to do. No. 2, it is being built based on, as well as
Mr. Speaker, in addition, in a time of
economic difficulties that we have heard about day after day, it will create a
thousand person years of jobs for the people of this country.
Mr.
Edwards: Again,
for the same minister, why is the minister insisting on sacrificing those net
savings to Manitobans, given that he knows that Manitoba Hydro told the PUB
that Manitobans would need the power by 1999 and the Public Utilities Board specifically
stated that they accepted Manitoba Hydro's base case forecast? Why is he sacrificing‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. You have already put the
question.
Mr.
Downey: Mr.
Speaker, we are not sacrificing savings for the people of
Mr.
Edwards: Mr.
Speaker, being responsible compared to this government's predecessor is not
difficult. Unfortunately, the government
is not even reaching that standard.
Why is this minister sacrificing the savings
to Manitobans given that Mr. Zaleski, Manitoba Hydro's expert, went on to say that
there could be domestic rate savings resulting from plant deferral?
Mr.
Downey: Mr.
Speaker, we are not sacrificing rate savings for the people of
There is a contractual sale made between
Manitoba Hydro and Ontario Hydro of some 1,000 megawatts of power annually,
which will give a today's value of some $900 million net benefits to the people
of
Grain Export
Licence Removal Government Position
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Agriculture.
Marketing boards have been established in this
country for the purposes of allowing producers to collectively market their products
from a position of strength and on an equal playing field with the large
agribusiness conglomerates that they deal with, in much the same way that
unions have been established by workers to ensure that they can negotiate from
a position of some strength.
I want to ask this Minister of Agriculture‑‑because
he says that he supports marketing boards, but his actions do not support that
and especially with regard to the Wheat Board‑‑why he has not
answered the questions that I asked in this House of the Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey) on April 27, dealing with the federal government's decision to remove
the enforcement of export licences for board grains moving to the
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the
The procedures for an individual producer to
sell in the
The only thing the Wheat Board has changed is
that they no longer require a producer to go into an elevator and dump the load
and then load it back up. They just do
the paperwork, and they can exercise the option if they receive the payment
from the Wheat Board at the time of delivery and then negotiate a buy‑back
price if they want to export. That
procedure has not changed.
Potato Producers Marketing Board
Processing
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, if they are not enforcing export
licences, we will in fact be competing with our own grain.
Mr.
Speaker:
Question, please. Order, please.
Mr.
Plohman: Mr.
Speaker, if this minister supports marketing boards, I want to ask this
minister why he vetoed the establishment of a marketing board for producers of
potatoes for processing, after it was democratically asked for as the result of
a vote by those same producers. This
minister said he believes in democracy.
Why did he veto that decision?
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, if I understand what the member
is talking about, a vote was held across the country.
Some
Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for
Dauphin will have time for one very short question.
Mr.
Plohman: The
producers in
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. Would you like to put your
question now, please? It was not on the
record.
Mr.
Plohman: Mr.
Speaker, I asked the minister why he vetoed a decision that was arrived at
democratically in this province‑‑68 percent of the producers asked
for that marketing board.
Mr.
Findlay: Mr.
Speaker, we have a Vegetable Producers' Marketing Board in the province, have
had for many years. [interjection]
I am not sure what the member is referring
to. Let us get into Estimates, and we
will talk about it. This minister did
not veto the performance or the setting up of anything. The vote that was held across the country,
unless we are talking about something different‑‑I am pretty sure
that the producers of this province did not vote in favour of a national potato
marketing agency. A national potato
marketing agency was voted against in this province when it was held some year
or so ago.
Mr.
Speaker: Time for
Oral Questions has expired.
Committee Changes
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli):
Mr. Speaker, I have some committee changes.
I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development
be amended as follows: the member for
River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) for the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr.
Downey); the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for Gimli
(Mr. Helwer); the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for La
Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson); the member for
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call the bills in the
following order: Bills 61, 64, 62, 10,
12, 15, 20. Then I propose to go to
second reading, Bill 75, and then back to Bill 70.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 61‑The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (4)
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
(Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 61, The Consumer
Protection Amendment Act (4); Loi no 4 modifiant la Loi sur
la protection du consommateur, standing in the name of the honourable member
for
*
(1420)
Mr.
Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I
am very pleased to speak to Bill 61 today.
I note that the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) is suggesting that we not
read any notes in the Chamber, and certainly it is not my intention to do that,
but I certainly will refer to notes here and again throughout the presentation.
This particular amendment that has been
brought in by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) is
evidently required to make some changes to The Consumer Protection Act to allow
the Consumers' Bureau to share information with other departments within the
The way the act is currently written, it
allows the Consumers' Bureau to share information with governments of other provinces. So the Consumers' Bureau in this province can
share information, for example, with the
The intent of this bill is to allow the
Consumers' Bureau to communicate the information and share it freely with other
departments within the government, which makes me wonder why this particular
bill and its companion bill, Bill 62, which I will be speaking to later on
today without the benefit of notes, were brought forward at this time.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the
government had some reason for pulling this together rather quickly. I suspect that it had to do with some of the
pitfalls that they have run into recently with issues in this province such as
the odometer rollback case and others where in fact the police department had a
certain set of facts and information and the Consumers' Bureau perhaps had a
different set of facts and information.
I am not making any comments here as to which
one had more correct information.
Perhaps they both would have but, in fact, because they were not
communicating with one another, the government found itself in an embarrassing
position, and it has moved to try to amend the legislation to make certain that
this does not happen again. Now I am
making an assumption that this is what has happened. The minister, in her address to this bill, did
not provide us with more than a one‑ or two‑ or three‑minute speech
on this amendment, so I do not know what the real story is behind this bill.
It seems like a very simple bill. It is only a one‑page bill, but the
fact of the matter is that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) claims
that it is for them to know and for us to find out. It seems to me, given the timing of this bill
and the way that it has been brought in, that my hunch is probably correct,
that they found themselves in a rather comical situation here of not having the
correct information on different issues; and, being at a disadvantage, they
have moved to try to correct that information.
I might point out that we on this side of the
House do not intend to stand in their way in terms of correcting this. I feel that the government is missing a major
opportunity here, because the minister is probably aware that it is difficult
to get amendments through the cabinet.
It would seem that if she was able to get the very limited attention of
her colleagues to get these amendments on the caucus agenda of the Conservative
caucus and make her presentation and get people like the Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey) to agree to an amendment like this, if she was prepared to do that,
then I would wonder why she would not have taken the opportunity to go that one
step further and bring some meaningful amendments to the caucus of the
Conservative Party, the governing caucus, temporarily at least, and to allow
them to bring in some consumer protection amendments here that would really
help consumers here in this province, and that are long overdue, some of which,
I might add, have a fair amount of support over there in the caucus.
Last evening this caucus, those members who
were not trying to bail the water out of the boat here in the House, were over
in Crescentwood for the nomination, nominating the former president of the
Consumers' Association, a good friend of the auto dealers in
As the president of the Consumers' Association
for the last four years, I believe she has lobbied this government on that issue,
at least she has said and told me and told others that she has.
I really wonder what is going to happen with
that caucus and that government if in fact she is successful in the election, which
I do not really think is going to happen, but if she is successful then it will
be very interesting to see whether the government does change its view on the
manufacturers' suggested retail price stickers.
But that is not the only area that that
particular newly nominated candidate of theirs and that government disagree on.
There are a number of issues that she has supported over the last few years and
it will be very interesting to see what sort of profile these issues now get
with this government. They obviously got
nowhere with this government for the last three or four years when she
advocated on the part of the Consumers' Association. We will see whether they get anywhere in
terms of the attempts to win the by‑election or, in fact, if she makes it
to the caucus, whether she has any influence in terms of getting any of these
things accepted from within.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this whole
exercise of Conservative interest in consumer issues will extend no further than
the end of the by‑election, that they may show some interest here in
consumer issues during the 35 days during the run‑up to, and the 35 days
of the by‑election, but once that period is over I think they will be
back in the pockets of the car dealers where they have been for the last
numerous years. The car dealers that have
bankrolled their election campaigns and funded them in the past have them in
their pockets. This new candidate will
be no different, in fact if she ever has been, than any of them sitting over
there right now, firmly under control.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) also had the opportunity at this point to bring
in documentation fee legislation, which is another aggravation that people have
as regards car dealers in this province.
In this province the car dealers charge consumers anywhere from $40 to $240
when a car is purchased simply to type up the sales contract.
It is called a documentation fee and a lot of
them today are so brazen that they print them right on the forms. I get complaints constantly from people who
usually have paid this fee and then question what it is about and by then it is
too late to get their money back. Some
people have been successful in getting these fees waived when they question
them at the point of sale and before they sign the documents are able to save themselves
this substantial amount of money by questioning what this documentation fee is.
But when they question what it is they are
told that it is the fee to pay the secretarial staff to type up the sales contract.
An
Honourable Member: Two hundred and forty bucks an hour, eh?
*
(1430)
Mr.
Maloway: My
colleague the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says $240 an hour. That is what expensive lawyers get paid. It is just another profit centre, in my view,
for the car dealers. They are not making enough already, it seems, on the sale
of the car itself and all the extras, and so on, that they are adding on to the
car, but they have to gouge the consumer for another $40 to, as I said, $200
thereabouts, for a documentation fee, a fee to type up the sales documents.
We feel that those should be banned. In fact, to be fair, I can tell you that
there are several dealers around town who, in fact, do not have a documentation
fee. I think consumers would be well
advised certainly to check that out in the mix and deal with dealers perhaps
who have a very low documentation fee or have none at all.
Given the amount of complaints that I have had
over the last four years on this area of documentation fees, it seems to me that
the minister should pay some attention to this particular area of the
documentation fee and should take some steps either to ban outright or
certainly limit the amount of documentation fees that can be charged. Certainly, the minister is listening now. Perhaps the minister could take under advisement
the option of having the fees explained, a requirement that they be explained,
if not outright banned. But I do not
think that is going to work. It seems to
me that an outright banning of this fee is the only way to go.
Mr. Speaker, there are many, many areas that
this minister should be addressing in terms of consumer protection. We could not possibly deal with all the areas
in the limited time of 40 minutes, but we have attempted in our last four years
to pick some obvious areas that require attention and to advance them and bring
them forward to the government. Whatever
avenue, whatever opportunity I have to speak to the minister or put comments on
the record on these issues, I have tried to take the opportunities to clear up
some of the misunderstanding, some of it, I think, just deliberate
misunderstanding, that some of the members opposite have on some of these
issues and, in fact, members of the House in general.
There are so many issues that we deal with in
this House, in fact, 100‑plus bills each legislative session. It is mind‑numbing to have to keep up
with all of the bills themselves and the intricacies of the bills. So no one person in this House, on either
side of the House, is an expert on any more than a dozen or so of these bills,
although most of us end up speaking on a goodly number of these bills and
become instant experts in fields that we only touch on briefly and, in fact,
rarely. But that is the nature of our
legislative system. I am not about to change
that overnight. We would not want to put
the Speaker out of a job.
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Is this your personal position or a caucus
position?
Mr.
Maloway: The
Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) wants to know whether these are personal positions. Well, the Deputy Premier has been around long
enough to know that any piece of legislation in this House, that gets promoted
and accepted to the point where it gets to the floor of the House, is normally
caucused by the caucus and has been accepted by the caucus.
I would say to the Deputy Premier that even
the legislation that the backbencher, the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau),
brought in in the last week, the legislation that he has introduced to require
safety certificates on all used car transactions, even that piece of
legislation, while the Conservative caucus does not support it, while they do
not have the nerve to bring it in on their own‑‑
An
Honourable Member: How do you know that?
Mr.
Maloway: Well,
the Deputy Premier wants to know how I know that. I happen to know that particular legislation
was taken to the Conservative caucus on three occasions over the last year, and
in fact it has been thrown out of the caucus each time. The member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau)
as the lone ranger from St. Norbert, has brought this bill in as an independent
member, and in his own limited experience of the legislative process somehow
thinks that this bill has some hope of getting through, when this government
that is elected by the people to govern does not have the nerve to take the
initiative to bring in this legislation.
This member has communicated to the car dealers association that
somehow, and given them some false hope‑‑and in fact they believed,
perhaps foolishly, that there was some hope for this legislation to pass.
What has essentially happened is the
government which does not have the drive, the initiative, to bring in this
legislation has essentially passed it over to one of their back‑bench
MLAs to carry the ball‑‑knowing full well that it is not going to
go anywhere‑‑to keep the car dealers onside.
Point of Order
Mr.
Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I was wondering if there might be a will of
the House today to relax the rules just a little bit to allow the members to remove
our jackets in the House today.
Mr.
Speaker: Would
there be leave to allow the members to remove their jackets for this afternoon.
An
Honourable Member:
No.
Mr.
Speaker: No,
leave is denied.
* *
*
Mr.
Maloway: Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the member for St. Norbert giving me a break in the
proceedings here. I thought he was
getting up on one of his many points of privilege there that he is hoping will
propel him into the Speaker's chair at some point, but this one was certainly
different.
Mr. Speaker, the minister should be also aware
of some other consumer issues that should have been brought in with this bill, and
I think she also should be aware of the area of the octane levels. In the United States‑‑I do not
know how many states, but a number of states have octane levels posted right on
the pumps.
If anyone knows anything about octane levels
in gas‑‑the octane levels are responsible for giving a person's
engine a better response and they are a very important determinant in gasoline
pricing and something that the consumer should know, and what one of our
national TV programs showed a couple of years ago‑‑I think it was
last year‑‑was that a major change had occurred in the pricing of
gasoline over the last couple of years, whereby the major producers of gasoline
in Canada basically changed not only the pricing of the product but changed the
octane level of the product. They
created essentially another product and charged a higher price for it. So what people were essentially getting was
that to achieve their old octane levels for the type of gas they were buying
they had to upgrade to a higher‑level gas.
This was a major national expose last year,
and, in fact, the government has certainly had a year now to do something about
this. I am really curious as to why the
minister has not taken some initiative here to require, because all we are
asking is that the minister require gasoline retailers in
*
(1440)
(Mr. Marcel
Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Surely, that cannot be an onerous
responsibility for gasoline retailers in this province, Mr. Acting Speaker, and
it would go a long way to allowing the consumers to be able to make a decision based
on fuller knowledge of what the octane levels are, so that the consumers, if
they could see what the octane levels are, could make a decision as to what
level of gasoline to buy.
When this issue became public last year, I did
check with several gasoline retailers, and I believe all of the gas stations that
I initially checked with, four or five stations in fact, not one of the station
attendants could identify what the octane level was in the gas. It was something that they were just not familiar
with at all and, quite frankly, could care less about.
I inquired further of these gasoline stations,
and I know, Mr. Acting Speaker, you have some knowledge of it, having been in the
gasoline retail business yourself. But
when I went beyond the person who was filling the tank at these four or five stations,
none of whom knew anything about the issue.
When I went to the owners of the stations or the managers of the stations
and inquired of them, well, they were able to shed a little more light on it,
but not a lot. They did not seem to be too
interested in the octane levels either.
I mean, they would refer me to phone the manufacturer because their
information was very limited about it.
They were unclear about the octane levels.
In fact, they, in one or two cases, gave me
the wrong information about which octane level they had, and it convinced me
that nothing would happen here unless the government did take action, the
government did regulate and require the gasoline retailers to post the octane
levels at the pumps.
Mr. Acting Speaker, this is another very, very
simple consumer protection change that, in fact, I would think would enhance
the popularity of a government that brought it in. What could it possibly cost to require
gasoline retailers to put little stickers on their pumps telling people what
the octane levels are? What could that
possibly cost? What could it possibly
cost this government, in terms of money, to require the motor dealers to
eliminate documentation fees which are just huge costs for typing up the sales
contract? It would not cost a government
concerned about fiscal responsibility, it would not cost them anything, and it
might help them in terms of their popularity.
Why would I be recommending that the
government would do anything that would help their popularity? I am just letting you know that it seems to
me that when you are in an economy where things are tough and money is tight,
and money is not available for major league programs, here are some issues that
cost next to nothing, that could be meaningful to the constituents in our constituencies.
The sticker price question, even the car
dealers will admit to you that they will accept the sticker price
question. It is a fact in
What is the cost, Mr. Acting Speaker,
associated with a sticker program? Next
to nothing, it is negligible. So, here are
three different areas that this government could bring in that would cost
almost nothing.
We have the whole area here of the odometer
tampering, which I suspect had a lot to do with the timing of this bill, this amendment
to The Consumer Protection Act in the first place. You have a major scandal, I believe, having
been perpetrated for many, many, many years by the automotive industry, but in
fact the RCMP have brought forward quite a number of charges over the last few
months now on odometer tampering.
I have been getting information that has been
passed along to appropriate authorities, and so on, about different situations that
are developing in this province. Believe
me, the police have borne me out on this fact, that this is a widespread scandal,
and there are a goodly number of charges right now that are outstanding. There is a situation, I believe, in Roblin‑Russell
where a car dealer is going to court. I
believe the case has been remanded now for a couple of months.
I think that over the course of the year we
are going to find a goodly number more people being charged with odometer tampering. It seems to me, Mr. Acting Speaker, that this
government, in fact, rather than doing anything about the situation, has simply
tried to divert attention here by passing this whole area over to the Minister
of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) because the Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) has gotten into trouble on this issue
already, when she was contradicted by the RCMP.
In fact, she has been sitting on a report on
this issue of odometer tampering since the end of February and shows no sign of
releasing the report to the public or to the Legislature. In fact, when I asked her two months after
the fact to release the report that would shed some light on the situation, the
Minister of Highways took the question.
The Minister of Highways is now burying this issue and is attempting to
handle the questions that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs cannot
handle.
What is the Minister of Highways saying about
the issue? He is checking into a sticker
question, a question that has been going on now a couple of years whereby MPIC
and the Motor Vehicle Branch have got together to try to somehow identify and
stamp motor vehicle write‑offs in the province and identify them as such
so that consumers will be able to know what it is they are buying, and what it
is they are driving.
When I checked with the Motor Vehicle Branch
on this matter, I was told that not only had they not considered requiring odometer
readings to be put on this particular sticker that they have been working on
now for two years, but, in fact, they had not even mocked up a rough plan of
the sticker that they are proposing to use.
Mr. Acting Speaker, two years have gone by,
meetings have been going on with the Minister of Highways and the Motor Vehicle
Branch head and the MPIC head. At this
point, they still have not even agreed on what the sticker is going to look
like for Autopac write‑offs. They
have no plans. As a matter of fact, it was
a new idea to him; they had not even considered the idea that they would, in
fact, include the odometer readings in the sticker arrangements that they would
have.
It seems to me that this government has simply
embarked on a little bit of damage control.
They knew that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs.
McIntosh) could not handle this issue, because she had proven she could not
with Corporal Sangster saying that she was totally wrong in her assessment of where
things were at.
*
(1450)
So they threw the ball over, along with the
report, to the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger), who has also done nothing for
the last two years on this issue. He, in
fact, is doing the public relations to try to throw us off track on this issue
and trying to tell the press that he is, in fact, doing something when he is
not.
You, Mr. Acting Speaker, know full well what I
am talking about when it comes to action or lack thereof from this government,
because you would not have to introduce your bill on the used‑car sticker
question if this government had any direction‑‑I mean, if they had
any direction at all. They are piecemealing,
and they are operating on a day‑to‑day basis. I mean, we saw that yesterday in spades, the
ad hockery of this government, when they just about went down the tubes‑‑all
30 of them‑‑just about went down the tubes because they did not
have enough people here.
They had 16, they had 17, they had 18 people
here over the 45 minutes of Question Period, and that, in anybody's terms, any mathematical
calculation, is not enough to win a vote in this House, Mr. Acting
Speaker. So they had to bring ministers
in off combines, and bring ministers in from sick bays into this Chamber to
rescue the government. In fact, they
lost the first vote, and they had to delay until they got the members here.
Now that, Mr. Acting Speaker, is no way to run
a government. Now we have some personal experience on how not to run a government. We had the same numbers as they do.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson):
History is repeating itself.
Mr.
Maloway: The
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says that history is repeating itself. There is an uncanny sense about that, that
this government is heading down the same rocky road as the last
government. As a survivor of that
previous government, I can tell you that life goes on, but the point is that
people should learn from their mistakes.
I think we learned something from our mistakes of the previous
government. I would think this government
should learn some lessons too before it repeats some of the mistakes that we
did when we were in government.
I see it largely making the same
mistakes. Only, in fact, it seems to be
doing them even quicker. It had a good
run in the first couple of years, but it is now quickly falling down very fast. The economic indicators are showing its
performance to be 10 out of 10.
Conditions in the province are getting worse. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) seems to be under
enormous pressure, and not reacting well.
The wheels are starting to fall off this cart, and it is getting pretty
wobbly over there.
I do not know that we are going to see this
government last to the end of its mandate.
It is pretty unclear at this point. In fact, if yesterday was any
indication of where this government is headed, I would say that it is headed
pretty quickly to that brick wall and it had better wake up before it hits that
brick wall.
After all, if you cannot count, you should not
be here. In fact, the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) was quite comical yesterday in trying to pull this thing
back together and explain it all away as just something that just kind of
happened: Well, you know I was out there
in the fields and the whole thing fell apart on me.
Well, surprise, surprise. When you have only 18 people here, of course
it is going to fall apart on you. What
do you think, we cannot count? This
government is convinced that, after the happenings of 1988, somehow we had
forgotten how to count and we would not learn again. Well, I have to remind this government that
we have some new people here. We are
back up to 20 seats and we are knocking on the door of government again. We are knocking on their door, and if they do
not watch out, we are going to walk in and throw them out the back door, maybe
quicker than they think.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I think I had better get
back to the bill at hand here. This is
Bill 61, and I had better not be reading that either.
I did want to talk to the minister a little
further on the whole area of the consumer legislation that she must bring in. You
know, it has got to the point where it is wearing thin for the Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) to argue that her department is
understaffed. This comes now from a minister
and a government, but particularly a government, that promised to do more with
less.
When we were in government, they were, on a
daily basis, almost saying that you are misspending money, that we are going to
do more things with less money. Well, I
am waiting to see the evidence of that‑‑where they are doing more
with less.
The previous Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs, before he got unceremoniously turfed out of the job, would
tell me that his staff that he had in the department were out monitoring gas
prices, and there were only one or two of them, they could not possibly cover
all of these areas. Well, we were able
to put together something like 15 consumer bills without too much effort, Mr.
Acting Speaker, and this government has an entire department that, per year,
puts out two little one‑line bills.
I mean, that is all they can get together in a year? What else can they
possibly be doing with their time?
When I asked last year about negative option
offers and whether some legislation would be put together‑‑[interjection]
Well, the Deputy Premier is reminding me that
I do not have to go the full 40 minutes.
I might remind him that you, yourself, tell me I only have two minutes
left of my first 40 minutes, and I have another bill to speak to this
afternoon. It is another one of these
one‑line bills that this minister is bringing in, and I am hoping to get
the rest of my speech this afternoon into the second part of the bill. So perhaps I will be able to continue on
where I left off in Bill 62, and I will be able to complete my remarks on the
negative option offers question, which, by the way, interestingly enough was an
issue‑‑give her credit‑‑brought up by the Leader of the
Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) a couple of years ago, when in fact the cable TV
company in town, one of the two, instituted this option and did not tell
anybody about it. Then we find out that
the minister, himself, has to declare a conflict of interest because he owns 20
percent of
Well, the new minister is there, and I am sure
she has not declared any conflicts on negative option offers. She owns no shares in any cable TV companies.
An
Honourable Member: How do you know?
Mr.
Maloway: Well, at
least she has not declared it. It took the
other minister nearly two years to declare his issues. As a matter of fact, it was the former member
for Crescentwood who in fact snared the minister at a committee hearing on the
matter, and only then did he declare his conflict, Mr. Acting Speaker.
In that period since, this minister has done
nothing in the area of negative option offers.
There is nothing pending. She does
not even use the excuse that her department is short of staff as the‑‑
*
(1500)
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, please.
The honourable member's time has expired.
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 64-‑The Child and Family Services Amendment Act
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), (Bill 64, The Child and Family
Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la famille) standing
in the name of the honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock). Is there leave that this bill remain
standing? [Agreed]
Bill 62‑The Business Practices Amendment Act (2)
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), (Bill 62, The
Business Practices Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les pratiques commerciales), standing
in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans). Is there leave for this matter to remain standing?
An
Honourable Member:
No.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Leave?
No.
Mr.
Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Acting Speaker, I had been hoping for a
break here, but I guess I get to finish my speech on my second bill back to
back. So I will have to stay away from
this water after my next little sip here.
If I might briefly talk about Bill 62, which
is The Business Practices Amendment Act, as you recall, The Business Practices Act
itself was only proclaimed into law this past January 1. So The Business Practices Act itself has been
around now for five months and already this government is bringing in
amendments to that act. Now, once again,
that conjures up a whole lot of questions here about why and how it is that a
government that spent nearly four years fine tuning, retooling, watering down a
Business Practices Act under two different ministers would in fact be able to
come back, only five months after it has been proclaimed and in operation, with
an amendment, when in fact it is not able to bring in other substantive
consumer protection changes that we feel should be necessary.
Mr. Acting Speaker, this particular piece of
legislation also allows the exchange of information with municipal police
forces such as the
It seems to me that with all the fine tuning
they did and all the studying they did with the president of the Consumers' Association
and all the watering down they did of this bill with her and members of the
Chamber of Commerce and the auto dealers' association‑‑and every
Tory hack group in this province had their say and got to write that
legislation to their specifications, and here after all of that they still
manage to mess it up, and just months later they manage to come into their
caucus and their cabinet and bring in‑‑I would have loved to be a
fly on the wall at that caucus meeting when they brought this in and trying to decide
how they were going to explain this to the House when this major, major, major
piece of legislation‑‑all the effort, all the work that was brought
in‑‑had to be amended in such a short period of time that they
would want to take the time of the caucus, the cabinet and the House to bring
in this piece of legislation at this point, Mr. Acting Speaker.
So they obviously have, in the minister's own
comments on the bill she‑‑you know they have only been working with
the act since January and according to her they have not been able to communicate
adequately, and I say adequately, with law enforcement officials. Well, that was pretty obvious, after the dressing
down that the minister got from the RCMP over the odometer situation. Right?
So I think at that point they decided that something is wrong here, that
they got rid of one incompetent minister from the Consumer and Corporate
Affairs department and they were perhaps going to be saddled with another one,
so they thought, my God, we have to do something here. So what they did was they quickly brought in
this piece of legislation to allow the police department to start communicating
with the Consumers' Bureau, because they had not been communicating up till
now. They simply sent the report that
they had on the rollback case over to the minister, who sat on it for a couple
of months and then shuffled it off to the Highways minister (Mr. Driedger), who
is now doing their damage control.
That is what the damage control department has
been up to over there, and I think that this is just another part of the damage
control department. They have to bring
this in because they did not want, in a future time and place in this House, to
be caught unawares with the police department knowing and working in certain
areas, and we in the opposition having more information on that issue and
others than the minister in the government.
They did not want that situation to happen again, and this is what is
supposed to occur.
I want to remind the deputy leader of the
government here, the person in charge of this operation supposedly, the Dan
Quayle of
Nevertheless, to give them credit, they see a
problem here and they are trying to do their damage control. They are trying to correct it so they do not
have any more repeat performances of what we saw in the House here two months
ago. On that basis, Mr. Acting Speaker,
we in this caucus decided to help this government out and to give speedy
approval.
Now, we do not know whether the Liberals in this
House are prepared to give speedy approval to this piece of legislation, but we
saw, a few minutes ago, the Liberals in this House held up Bill 61, which is a
sister companion bill to this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Acting
Speaker. So the Liberals obviously have
more to say about this, and perhaps they will expound further on what this
government has been up to with this particular bill.
We, on our side of the House, felt, discussed
in caucus, that we would not hold the government up on either one of these bills. In fact, while we do like to catch them
unaware, misinformed, uninformed and embarrass them, we do feel that this is
important enough that we should pass this legislation and allow them to share
proper information between the police forces and the minister so that she will
get her stories straight in the future; so she will have the information for a
change; so she will be able to answer questions for a change; and she will not have
to give the question off or give the information off to the Minister of
Highways to try to save the day.
The minister is obviously working with the
Liberal Party here, or what is left of it, to try to get them to give speedy passage
to this‑‑[interjection]
*
(1510)
The member for
Perhaps she can spend the next few minutes
convincing the Liberal Party not to hold this piece of legislation up any longer. Perhaps she can convince the member for
The lone exception, Mr. Acting Speaker, has
been the Leader in the question of the negative option offers, which brings me back
to the point at which I left off on the last bill: the whole area of negative option offers and
why it is that this government, after four long years of Tory rule in this
province, has yet to address the whole question of negative option offers.
As I indicated, I gave full credit to the
Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) for seeing the issue when it came up
and bringing it up, and the former member for Crescentwood.
The reason why we are having this by‑election
in the middle of 90‑degree temperatures and why I have to go out and
knock on doors when it is 93 above in Crescentwood tonight, because the member
for Crescentwood, one of the remaining members of the Liberal Party after the
last election, has decided to call it quits.
Well, that particular member when he was around here was the person who
did some work on negative option offers.
But, at that time, Mr. Acting Speaker, the
member for
Then, lo and behold, he declares his conflict
of interest for owning 20 percent of
We are going to see some action here. Two years have gone by and this minister is
basically treading water. In fact, some would
argue she is even worse than the previous minister, because for whatever we want
to say about the previous minister, at least he managed to get The Business
Practices Act through that caucus. He
managed to get more than a one‑page bill through the Conservative
caucus. This minister has done nothing
more than a one‑line bill. That is
all she has managed to do.
The member for
Then the business community jumped on his
case, and he pulled his own bill. He
pulled his own Business Practices Act in committee. Subsequent to that, the unconscionable acts
were taken out of the bill, and the bill was watered down. We were very unhappy with that, but we were
at least content that we got some piece of legislation through. It was not as strong as we would have liked,
but at least we got a Business Practices Act. In the context of a Conservative
free‑wheeling, free‑enterprise government, we thought that is
pretty good coming from a group of Conservatives. You would not expect them to do even that
much.
You know, Mr. Acting Speaker, even with the
best piece of legislation around, it is one thing to have good legislation, but
it is another thing to have proper enforcement of that legislation. That is what makes me very suspicious of this
particular government, because while they came through with the watered‑down
Business Practices Act, the real suspicion I have is whether or not the act
itself is going to be properly administered and enforced under a Conservative
government and whether it is going to be aggressively pursued.
The departments of government take direction
from the ministers in those departments.
In fact, if the minister has a very hands‑off approach on a
particular piece of legislation or particular idea, then I think the people who
are working under that particular minister learn from the directions they get
from the boss and follow those directions.
I am a bit concerned that with the change of ministers that in fact the‑‑
An
Honourable Member: Wasted Days and Wasted Nights. Freddie Fender should be your next theme.
Mr.
Maloway: Well,
thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker, that was a welcome break, and I wish my Leader
would come back and give me another two or three minutes.
The fact of the matter is that this act was
only proclaimed in January. After
considerable delays, it was watered down.
It has not been given enough time for us on this side of the House to
make a definitive decision as to how well it is operating, we decided, I think,
on January 1 when it was proclaimed, to take a look at it after six
months. The first six months are not up until
July 1. We intend to review it at that
point to see how well it is working, and to see well how this government and people
are enforcing the act, and to see what sort of a benefit it does have.
In fact, I might say that I am a little bit
disappointed in the minister for not making much of an effort to date to let people
know about the act. I have had calls
into my office, and I find, certainly, in the first part of the‑‑because
the act was passed last summer, the minister had quite a run‑up to the proclamation
of the act to let it be known that it was available.
We have heard, really, very little from this
minister about this act. Many people
that are phoning me are totally unaware of The Business Practices Act and not
aware that they have a recourse under this act.
But I think that as the time goes by, as people get more aware of it, if
the act is actively pursued and enforced by the department, then people will
take heart from the legislation and will find more use of The Business
Practices Act in the province.
*
(1520)
This particular amendment is not a good sign,
that they would have to make these amendments so soon after bringing in the
act. It causes me to wonder how many more amendments we may see coming out of
this particular piece of legislation. I
would not like to see us at the end of session, as we saw in the last session
the government furiously producing pieces of legislation in the dying days of
the House, in the middle of summer almost, because they had forgot this piece
and they had forgot that piece.
They needed all these different pieces to make
the whole even workable, and that is not the way that this government should be
running. It is not the way a government
should be running, and obviously there are a lot of cracks in this system.
[interjection]
Mr. Acting Speaker, I was only beginning. The Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) would
prefer to get on to other things, but the Minister of Highways should, perhaps,
get to work on the odometer tampering question and get back to this House
reasonably soon about what he plans to do.
In fact, he plans to do absolutely nothing
this session. He plans to stonewall; he
plans to sit back and let this issue simmer until he is forced to do something,
perhaps sometime next session. That is
not the way this government should be operating at all. In the area of the lemon law, this government
has had adequate opportunities to introduce proper legislation in this province
for lemon law. In the
In the
In fact, recently I sat through some panels,
lemon law arbitration panels in
Mr. Acting Speaker, having some experience in
the automotive industry, you should be aware that the lemon law has nothing to do
with the car dealers. It has to do with
the manufacturers, and Dr. Nowicki himself told me last week that he was
surprised at the interference he got from the organized car dealers when it had
nothing to do with them.
That, in fact, is exactly what happened here a
couple of years ago, where the head of the Consumers' Association‑‑former
head, the new Conservative candidate in Crescentwood‑‑sided with the
car dealers association and said that lemon law was a bad idea. Well, three or four months ago she saw the light
and now she thinks lemon law is a good idea, and now she understands that it
has nothing to do with car dealers. I
was absolutely aghast that the president of the Consumers' Association could be
that ill‑informed to not understand what lemon law was all about.
Either she misunderstood what it was all about
or she deliberately misrepresented what the lemon law was all about and sided
with the car dealers, who also misrepresented what it was all about. It had nothing to do with the car dealers
themselves.
As a matter of fact, one of the newer people
in the Automobile Dealers Association is actually supportive of lemon law. He has some experience with
After all, it is the dealers that the customer
comes back to time and time again with their lemon cars. It is the dealer who has to listen to the
disgruntled consumer, not the manufacturer. So what lemon law does is it
requires the manufacturer to come good for the lemon cars that they are
producing and selling to the consumers.
What person in this House would disagree with
that? What person in this House would
say and would be content to have to go back to their car dealer over a car that
just does not work? What person in this House would disagree with the concept
that the manufacturers should be responsible, not the dealers, for the cars
they sell? That once you had a problem
with a new car, once a person took it back three or four times and the dealer
was unable to fix it, it should not come as any surprise to anyone here that if
the dealer cannot fix it after four attempts there must be something wrong with
the car. Therefore, it is logical that
the manufacturer should be held responsible.
Does it make sense that the consumers of this province or any
jurisdiction for that matter should have to go to Small Claims Court and go
before a judge and make an argument for a new car?
In fact, they cannot do it in Small Claims
Court in this jurisdiction, because since I have been here for the last six years
and not the 10 that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) keeps thinking I have
been here for, it might seem like 10 for him, but we, since I have been here,
have increased the level at which a person can go to Small
I ask you, Mr. Acting Speaker, what good is
that to you as a consumer, because if you have a lemon car and you want the manufacturer
to take it back, a $5,000 limit is not going to help you. Cars are worth a lot more than $5,000.
*
(1530)
In
If the panel agrees that the car is in fact a
lemon, then the consumer has the option of having a new car given to them or their
money back minus an adjustment, and there is a formula right in the bill. It seems like a complicated formula, but it is
not that complicated. It is evidently an
accurate formula; it is an accurate way of computing what wear and tear would
be on that automobile.
So, as a consumer, if you have driven the car
for three or four months, you are not going to get all your money back, nor are
you going to get a brand new car. You
are going to get either all your money back minus your three months' wear and
tear and use of the car, or you are going to get a new car and have to pay for
three months' use of the car. That is
another provision of the
But was that provision acknowledged by the car
dealers of this province or by the so‑called president of the Consumers' Association? No, it was not. It was deliberately misrepresented by them,
and these people can read. Surely these
people are not that ill‑educated that they cannot read? No, they deliberately misrepresent, basically
keeping with the Conservative agenda, keeping with the Conservative government
of this province. We see how closely
they work together.
The car dealers' association has had this
government in their pockets from Day One.
This government does what the car dealers want, and the president of the
Consumers' Association was in that pocket as well. Now she shows her true colours and she
emerges as a born‑again Conservative, a candidate now for a by‑election,
and hopes to be the third Consumer minister in this government.
So they turf this one out for doing nothing
and then put in another one. But this
next one that they put in, if she in fact wins and gets put in, cannot
read. So they should know in advance
that the new one that they would be looking at, the former president of the
Consumers' Association, cannot read; and, if she can read, she does not
understand what she reads; and, if she understands what she reads, she lies
about it.
An
Honourable Member: That is good because you do not want us reading
over here . . . .
Mr.
Maloway: Well,
the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is upset here‑‑
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, please.
Point of Order
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): This is a serious statement. I think I heard rightly, Mr. Acting Speaker. I
think I heard the member opposite say, in referring to the Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), she lies about it.
An
Honourable Member: The candidate.
The minister would never lie about it.
Mr.
Manness: I thank
the member for that clarification, but I think also that when we are referring
to any member of the public, whether they are running for political offices or
not, it is not proper decorum to refer to how they might present any case or
any issue.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, please.
I thank the honourable minister for his point of order. At this time, I would like to caution the
honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) that the Speaker has cautioned
members to exercise great care in making statements about persons who are
outside of the House and unable to reply.
* *
*
Mr.
Maloway: It seems
to me that my position at the time was certainly misrepresented by the new
Conservative candidate in Crescentwood.
I would have appreciated at the time if she had been a little more
forthright in her interpretation.
I do not have any objection with anybody opposing
a piece of legislation as long as they adequately represent what it is all about
and are fair about it. I have no
objection to her, whatsoever, saying that she is opposed to lemon law. I have no problem with that at all, but I do
have a problem with her making statements to the press which totally
misrepresent what the bill is all about.
That was my comment, Mr. Acting Speaker, in that area.
Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to think
that this government will see the light in the area of the lemon law and bring
it into this House. If it is any
consolation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), he should know that in
The fact of the matter is that Democrats and
Republicans in the
Here we have a situation where we have no auto
manufacturers in this province. I could
understand this government being somewhat reluctant if we had auto plants and
the government was worried about auto plants being relocated to other
jurisdictions because of lemon law being onerous. But this province, Mr. Acting Speaker, has no
car manufacturers at all, none whatsoever.
So what are they concerned about?
Where do they anticipate the pressure to come from? There are no manufacturers to pressure them
in terms of "we will withdraw plants; we will withdraw jobs from
here." The auto dealers are not
affected.
In fact the auto dealers are helped by this
legislation in the sense that it puts the responsibility for producing lemon cars
back on the manufacturer where it belongs and in fact allows the retailer, the
auto dealer, in a way, a way out.
Third, and most important, it allows the
consumer redress. It allows the consumer a way to get his or her money back or
a new car adjusted for the wear and tear without having to resort to the court
process, which is very costly. As I
indicated before, the court process in this province would really not work in
this situation because the $5,000 limit on small claims court would simply not
be sufficient in this situation. People
would be forced into the Court of Queen's Bench. People would be forced to deal with high‑priced
lawyers, which is the situation right now, and that would not be a very good
situation, is not a very good situation.
*
(1540)
I am the person who gets the majority of the
complaints and the files from people who are upset about cars, who feel they have
these lemon cars. The members of the
government are not getting representations from people because the people are
not going to this government. They know
that they are not going to get action from this government. This government is not willing to take the
initiative. The only initiative they
have taken is business practices, which I have applauded them for in the limited
scope that they have done it in.
We do not feel that they are planning to
enforce that legislation the way we would like to see it enforced. We are very suspicious about that. Time will tell whether we are right in that
assessment or whether we are wrong in that assessment, but we have our
suspicions, and we are not finding proper initiatives from this government in
the whole area of consumer legislation.
With that, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to
move the bill to committee stage, unless there is anyone else who wants to speak
on it.
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Yes, Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by
the member for
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 10‑The
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), Bill 10 (The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Shall this matter remain standing? [Agreed]
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Yes, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to speak
on Bill 10.
Bill 10, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act,
what appears to be a simple little piece of legislation is not quite so simple
as it would appear.
For example, it is very clear that the purpose
of this bill is to raise the limit of Manitoba Hydro's temporary borrowing authority
from $150 million to a mere $500 million.
We are simply talking about $350 million in this particular piece of legislation.
That is a rather major piece of
legislation. There are very few things,
other than the budget, that we pass in the Manitoba Legislature that includes
that kind of quantity of money. So when
we are talking about $350 million, I think we should put it into some kind of
perspective. There are only two
departments of government that spend more money than that, the Department of Education
and the Department of Health.
So we are talking about a sum of money which
the government wishes to grant to Manitoba Hydro which exceeds every single
line of the budget with the exception of two, so what we have is something that
should not be considered lightly. It
must be considered a very serious bill, because the question is, why does this
government want to extend the borrowing authority of Hydro by 233 percent?
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
What do they want Manitoba Hydro to do with
this additional line of authority of 233 percent? Well, if we listen to the minister
responsible for Hydro (Mr. Downey), he will say, well, we do not want to spend
it on Conawapa. Now, we know that the major
project before Manitoba Hydro is Conawapa, but we are led to believe by the
minister that none of this money is going to go into Manitoba Hydro with
respect to Conawapa. Well, that, Mr. Speaker,
I would say is absolute nonsense.
I would also suggest to you that we passed a
loan act last year which gave authority to an additional $500 million to Manitoba
Hydro, so we are expanding each and every year the potential of Manitoba Hydro
to borrow money, and we say, what do they want to borrow this money for?
Well, obviously, it is for the ongoing
functions of Manitoba Hydro. One of
those very important ongoing functions is this government's slavish devotion to
having Conawapa built before it needs to be built, and that leads us to, of
course, a debate of the politics of power in the
Mr. Speaker, we have watched power being
constructed in the
Well, there is no need for the power from Conawapa. Take a look at what Conawapa was supposed to
do. Conawapa is supposed to build a
major dam in the
The theory was that that residue power was
essential to the needs of
We accepted the judgment of Manitoba Hydro
that they would require this power by the year 2000. It is quite interesting to read what
Mr. Zaleski then goes on to say: with a net saving over current expectations.
It would, in other words, save us money to not
do it. There could be, he says, domestic
rate savings resulting from plant deferral.
This is Manitoba Hydro's expert witness saying that if we knew we did
not need the power in the year 2000, then we could delay it and there could be
genuine savings to the ratepayers of the
Well, Mr. Speaker, not only do we now know
that we do not need that power in the year 2000, we know we do not need the power
in the year 2005. We know we do not need
the power in the year 2010. The most
recent projection says we will not need the power until the year 2011.
So why is it that this government that works
with the Manitoba Hydro system, whose mandate is to provide essential power for
Why are we doing it? Well, I think we have to look very specifically
at the politics of power. I think we
have to go back into history just a little bit.
I remember watching the debate, albeit from the gallery at this
particular point in time, between the then‑governing New Democratic Party
and the then‑opposition, Progressive Conservatives.
The debate was about Limestone. The Premier and the critic responsible for
Hydro got up day after day after day and said that we must not build this
project for political expediency, that there is no need to build this project
for 1986, that we should be building it when it is necessary. When did we decide to build it, Mr. Speaker?
We decided to build it for the 1986 election
campaign. Why? Because the NDP had built
a strategy of Howard Pawley on the top of a giant earth mover. There they were on television ads, there they
were on campaign literature, of Howard Pawley on his earth‑moving
machine, the giant killer creating, I think it was, 2,000 jobs‑‑a
wonderful day for
*
(1550)
People who could have been trained in much
more sophisticated technologies ended up being trained to be cleaners, ended up
being trained to be cooks' assistants instead of being able to achieve the apprenticeship
training that would have been necessary for them to become heavy equipment
operators‑‑very few.
Particularly and tragically, very few aboriginal peoples received that
kind of intensive training because it was discovered, as we so tragically know,
that many of them needed upgrading before they could begin the formalized
training for jobs. That upgrading in and
of itself took a couple of years. So by the time they had completed the
upgrading, they were not given any time frame in order to acquire the more
technological skills. So a good concept
went awry because of the speed on behalf of the government to make sure that
1986 was an election issue.
Tragically, I see exactly the same thing
happening here, Mr. Speaker. We have an
agenda for a 1994 election campaign. So
now we can have the Premier (Mr. Filmon) on the big giant earth mover saying he
is going to create X numbers of jobs so he can have his picture on the TV ads
on this giant machine, and again we are doing something which is outside of the
mandate of Manitoba Hydro and which has not been evaluated appropriately.
Now, the Minister responsible for Hydro (Mr.
Downey) would say, oh, yes, but it has been before the Public Utilities Board. But
the Public Utilities Board had misinformation or at least misinformation
now. I suspect that at the time they
received the information, and I want to be very clear, that information was the
best guess of Manitoba Hydro in November of 1990. That was the best guess that this would be
the figure that would be the time frame that we would require this power, and
the time frame was to be the year 2000.
Miraculously three months later we have a whole new projection, and
miraculously three months after that we have a further projection.
Now, why were these changes happening? Well, they were happening for several
reasons. They were happening primarily because
Manitoba Hydro began to look towards a conservation modality which they had
never seriously looked at before. There is
no question about that. That
conservation modality meant that they could save power, that they could get
involved in programs like Power Smart which the Liberal Party recommended to
the government, that they could buy into programs which would encourage the
conservation of power. That would mean
that the needed construction of power could be delayed. So that was one of the reasons why the
projection changed.
The other reason why the projection changed,
quite frankly, was because there was an understanding in the world economy that
business could use the process of co‑generation far more effectively. It is interesting. For example, I debated the other day, or
discussed, with an individual who is interested in purchasing an interest in
the
Certainly, we see West Coast Energy as a
company which has become a leader in the field of co‑generation projects
in the
So, we now know that although the Public
Utilities Board made a judgment on the information that was valid at the time,
that information is no longer valid by Manitoba Hydro's own forecast. We have
the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), the former minister of Hydro, on the
record, stating that if he knew then what he knows now, he would not recommend
the year for construction being 1994. So
it is argued that hindsight is a wonderful thing.
But, Mr. Speaker, hindsight can be very useful
here, because, to this point in time, naught significant money has been invested
in this project. So it is time to,
appropriately, re‑evaluate what is happening with regard to this.
Now, we have entered into a sale with Ontario
Hydro. Mr. Speaker, we found what we
thought was a considerable loophole in the agreement between Manitoba Hydro and
Ontario Hydro. The loophole was very
simple. Ontario Hydro had to have
approval of their agreement by Order-in-Council, and that Order‑in‑Council
had a very narrow window time frame.
Through an error somewhere in Executive
Council in Ontario‑‑perhaps similar to the error that I noticed,
for example, today in an executive assistant to a minister who has been
functioning since January, finally got it approved in a Order‑in‑Council
last week. Those kinds of errors do
occur, an error in Executive Council.
Things do not happen as rapidly sometimes as they should.
In this particular case, it did not happen and
as a result, they were outside of the contract.
I wish the honourable members had been here. Some of you know, I think, that I am married
to a corporate lawyer, and I took this agreement home to my husband. He
chuckled loud and long when he found the little loophole in this particular
agreement, and said, here, here, this is what you can do with this particular
one. It is very useful to have spouses
who can do that kind of thing for you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, we brought it into the House and the
minister responsible said, well, you know, we will have to look at this. So
they hired a law firm, and that law firm came out with a legal opinion. Now, they would not give us the full legal
opinion. They gave us sentences from the legal opinion. Some of the problems with the legal opinion
were that it had the wrong dates. It had
the wrong dates for the Order‑in‑Council.
So we became very suspicious of this
particular Order‑in‑Council, and so we decided to hire our own law
firm.
Well, we hired our own law firm, and guess
what? We came back with a legal opinion
which is totally opposite to the legal opinion which had been obtained, we
think, by the government, and I say we think because they have never afforded
us a glimpse at the entire legal opinion.
We, on the other hand, tabled our full agreement so that there would be
no question in the minds of Manitoba Hydro as to exactly what arguments were
being made.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something about
legal opinions. I know that if you direct a law firm appropriately, you can get
probably any legal opinion you want. I
am saying that there is often a situation in which there are gray areas and in
which legal counsel can be persuaded to give opinion A or opinion B. Let me
tell you that we know full well that legal opinions can be used in that manner,
and have been used by governments and opposition parties on many
occasions. That is why we were prepared
to table our legal opinion.
We have been waiting with some patience now
for some months for a legal opinion to be tabled by the government which would refute
the legal opinion that we tabled. They
have not even bothered to do that, Mr. Speaker.
They have not even bothered to take our legal opinion to Manitoba Hydro
and say to Manitoba Hydro's lawyers, would you shoot this legal opinion down,
because I have been close enough to the law all my life that I know that this
can be done. [interjection] Ah, I have been very close, on all sides.
*
(1600)
Lawyers can take an agreement and interpret it
in a number of ways, and I think we are very well aware of that, every member
of this Chamber.
You have a legal opinion which you will not
table. When I say, you, I mean the
government‑‑will not table in this Chamber. We got a legal opinion
in contradiction to your legal opinion which we had, quite frankly, the guts to
table. You have done nothing to refute
this.
But let us go beyond exactly what the legal
opinion was. The legal opinion that we
received said that this action had been taken outside of the time frame of the
contract between Ontario Hydro and Manitoba Hydro, and therefore it could be
argued that the legal contract was invalid.
Now, what did we want the government to do
with this legal contract? Did we want
them to scrap it? No, we did not. Did we want them to rip up their contract
with Ontario Hydro? No. We wanted them to use this as a negotiating
tool. If in fact the contract was open
to interpretation, if the contract was indeed invalid, then Ontario Hydro
should be given the opportunity to negotiate with us for better terms for
We believe that the project needs to be re‑evaluated,
and it needs to be re‑evaluated for three reasons. This is where the Liberal Party stands firmly
on the development of power. First and
foremost, no power should be built in the
Secondly, we must meet the environmental
standards imposed by an environmental review process. The government has committed to a review
process, but let us look at what they have done since they made that
commitment. They have limited the amount
of money available to intervenor status.
Now we are at a million dollars, a lot of money, but we are talking
about a $5.8‑billion project. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the member for La
Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) can quickly tell me how many zeros that is. It is a heck of a lot.
An
Honourable Member:
How many is it,
Mrs.
Carstairs: I asked
him.
What we are talking about is 580 times
one. That is what we are talking
about. We are talking about a project
which is extremely critical to this province in terms of the money which we
spend and the debt load‑‑which is of interest to the Finance Minister
(Mr. Manness)‑‑that we assume as a result. We know darn well what is happening at
Limestone. Limestone is not paying for itself. Limestone is a charge against the ratepayers
of the
So the three factors: We must need the power in
I am not equipped, and I would suggest to you
that there is not a member in this Chamber who is equipped to say categorically,
there will be no environmental damage.
None of us is equipped to say that.
I am not saying there will be. I cannot say there will be or there will not
be, because I am not an environmental expert, but what I resent is Manitoba
Hydro putting out a pamphlet to already prejudge the environmental
process. That is what they have done. They have said everything is wonderful,
everything is perfect, there cannot possibly be any environmental damage. Well then, why are we bothering with an
environmental assessment? Is it just
show? Well, I hope not, Mr. Speaker,
because if all it is, is show, then that would be a tragedy for the future of
the
I notice that the member has indicated that
their candidate for Crescentwood that they nominated last night, Jenny Hillard,
has indicated her opposition to Conawapa, and she is waiting with a certain
amount of anticipation for the environmental assessment.
Well, I wonder if Ms. Hillard is aware of the
fact that they have limited the intervener funding. I am wondering if Ms. Hillard is aware of the
fact that Manitoba Hydro has already decided that it is an environmentally
benign project. I am wondering if Ms.
Hillard is aware of the fact that this government has made it part and parcel
of their election platform for 1994.
I know Ms. Hillard personally. I think she is a very fine person. I first met her when she was making skating
costumes for my daughter Jennie, and I know that as a single mother, she struggled
very hard to raise two children in the west end of the city, just south of Polo
Park. I visited her home frequently for fittings
and for costume pickup, and I noted with interest her participation then in the
community. So I welcome her. I would suggest we are going to defeat her,
but I welcome her as a candidate in the Crescentwood by‑election.
But I find it fascinating that this is a major
thrust of this government, and they nominate a candidate who goes on radio this
morning and says, well, I am opposed to Conawapa. This is a woman who indicated in the past
that she was in the NDP. I wonder if she
left them because she was opposed to Limestone? She indicates that at some time
she has been a Liberal. I cannot find
any record of a membership for her as a member of the Liberal Party, but I
would have welcomed her because I think she is a very fine person.
I cannot find a record that she was ever a
member of the Liberal Party, but in terms of her membership in the Conservative
Party, I find it fascinating that she is coming out immediately in opposition
to one of the major thrusts of this government. That will be interesting in
terms of the evolution of the Crescentwood by‑election.
Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at one of the
reasons why I believe the project should be delayed. I believe that one of the serious faults of
the Limestone project was the fact that the training was begun far too late.
*
(1610)
Now let us take a look at what has happened to
Limestone training in between 1988, when this government came to office, and
the present. Well, first of all, we
watched Limestone training being unilaterally shifted over to
There are significantly fewer young people
being trained at
That does not bode well for training
opportunities for those who would like to work on Conawapa. Again, we are in the same scenario. We are now at 1992. We have a project which is going to begin
construction, the government would tell us, in 1994. Have we started the
training process for those who would work at the site? No, we have not.
Are we going to be able to give them a four‑year
apprenticeship? No, we are not, because
this government is making exactly the same mistake that they made in Limestone
in 1986. They precipitated a movement
which was not in the best interests of the training of northerners into highly
skilled, technological occupations.
Mr. Speaker, we have provided this government
with an opportunity to renegotiate. Why
do we want them to renegotiate? We want them to renegotiate for a number of
reasons. First and foremost, we do not
believe, nor does Manitoba Hydro, that the power is required at the present
time in the
Secondly, the environment assessment process
is being speeded up by this government.
They have cut intervener funding.
They have not provided adequacy of dollars for those who would like to hire
experts in contrary opinion to those experts who will be provided by Manitoba
Hydro, and we know what the experts for Manitoba Hydro are going to say. They already said it in a pamphlet they
delivered to all of their users just this week, that it is an environmentally
benign project.
So we know that there is a genuine need for
intervenor status for people who will present contrary arguments and then allow
the environment assessment process to continue in as free and open a dialogue
as it is possible.
Thirdly, we believe that it is inappropriate
to speed up this project‑‑and that is what is being done, because
we do not need the power‑‑because of the dearth of training
opportunities which will result to northerners as a result. If we take sufficient time so that we are
providing for Manitoba Hydro needs by the year 2012, then we have enough time
to do the adequacy of training that will be required to give northerners, and particularly
aboriginal northerners, the skills they will need to not only build this
project but to take that learning with them from that project to be used in
other useful development projects in northern Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy for members of
the government to say that the Liberal Party is on both sides of this
issue. We are not both sides of the
issue. We are very clear as to exactly where
we are on this issue. We believe that
Hydro projects necessary for
I also questioned why we are building a
project which now, since it is not needed by
That is why I would like to see the entire mandate
of Manitoba Hydro debated. The First
Minister (Mr. Filmon) came back from his meeting in B.C. and talked about the
western grid. I see the western grid as a very positive thing. I think that is something in which
I see no quid pro quo in the deal that we have
signed with
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): They are promising never to elect an NDP
government again.
Mrs.
Carstairs: Well, Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) indicates that the quid
pro quo from
Unfortunately, I do not think that he can
control the nine million people living in
Mr. Speaker, we are going down a path that we
have gone down before in the
I think that it is clear to many on the scene
that northerners have benefited little from the massive power projects that we
have produced in their part of this province.
They have benefited on occasion from short‑term jobs but not long‑term
skills. They pay higher Hydro rates than
we do in the city of
Our aboriginal brothers and sisters have far
more serious complaints. Their lands
have been destroyed. Their environment has
become uninhabitable for many of the skills that they once had. Their fishing has frequently been
destroyed. Their hunting grounds have
been destroyed.
I would suggest that the minister has made
very positive moves in settling some very long outstanding claims from our aboriginal
people and I congratulate the minister‑‑progress which was not made
by the previous administration despite the fact that they pretended to
represent those communities in great number.
I find it somewhat interesting that the settlements for these claims are
being made by a government which I think would readily admit is primarily a
southern government and not a northern government, yet they have worked hard at
maintaining and trying to make some of the settlements with the Northern
Agreement.
But now we are launching into another stage of
power investment, and that power investment must meet, in the opinion of the
Liberal Party, three very clear priorities.
It must be, first and foremost, in the need of Manitobans for that
power. Secondly, it must be environmentally sensitive and thirdly, it must be
in our economic best interest. At this
point in time, Conawapa fails all three, Mr. Speaker.
*
(1620)
On that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my
remarks on this particular bill.
Mr.
Speaker: As
previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the
honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Bill 12‑The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill
12, The Animal Husbandry Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'elevage, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), who has 10 minutes
remaining. Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed]
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
As the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) has
indicated, we will not be passing this bill at this time because we are waiting
to get into the Agriculture Estimates where we can discuss with the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) some of the consequences of his privatization of
services to rural Manitoba, because that is really what this bill is, Mr.
Speaker, is the privatization of many services that were made available by government
to farmers in Manitoba, and this government has chosen to privatize many of
those services.
Mr. Speaker, the bill deals with three
issues. It deals with the residing of
technicians, in that technicians are no longer going to be required to reside
in the region that they serve. It also
deals with the reference of the Manitoba Semen Distribution Centre because this
is no longer an agent of government. It
also deals with the violations of animal artificial inseminations and an
increase in fines. I would like to
comment briefly on each of those sections that are being amended.
One of the most interesting ones is the
requirement that technicians no longer have to live in the community that they serve. When we look at the direction that this
government says they are going in, they talk about decentralization and
providing more services to the rural communities, moving services out of the
city into the rural area, but here they are taking services away. Rather than bringing services closer to the
community, they are telling technicians that they do not have to live in the area
where services are required, and we have some concerns.
We know that many farmers, ranchers have
difficulty getting the services that they need, and we have heard of cases,
since this government has changed the regulations on artificial insemination,
that there are people who are saying that they are not having services provided
as adequately as they were previously.
The organization that has the responsibility, that owns the company now,
is operating to make profit. When it becomes
too far to drive to make profit, when there are too few clients in a particular
area, then they do not find it necessary or it does not pay for them. That was why it was important that government
was involved in providing the services to the farming community, and it is
disappointing that this minister has chosen to take this service away at a time
in particular when we say we have to diversify the rural economy. Farmers need supports; we are having that
reduced.
As I said, it does not sit well with the
government to, on one hand, talk about decentralization of services and then
have a commitment broken when they say the technicians. Then, of course, the government's record is
not all that good on decentralization anyway.
Point of Order
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): We are ready to move Bill 10 into committee,
so we would like to deny leave to keep it standing in the name of the member
for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Mr.
Speaker: On the
point of order raised, the House has already granted leave that this matter
could remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin.
Is it the will of the House to deny leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: There is
agreement. Leave is denied.
* *
*
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that leave
has been denied on Bill 10.
Mr.
Speaker: Yes.
Mr.
Downey: Can I now
proceed to close debate on Bill 10?
Mr.
Speaker: The
honourable minister to close debate on Bill 10‑‑order, please. We are still dealing with the member for
In order to prevent some chaos, the honourable
member for
Ms.
Wowchuk: Mr.
Speaker, we are dealing with Bill 12, which is really a privatization bill of
this government. As I had indicated
earlier, we are not prepared to move this bill to committee, because we want to
hear what the minister has to say when this comes up in Estimates. We are going to be dealing with those
Estimates on Thursday and perhaps the earlier part of next week, so it will not
take that long. At that time, we will
then be prepared to move this bill along when we have the information that we
require as to what this government has saved in dollars versus the services
they have reduced to farmers and ranchers.
Before I was interrupted I was talking about decentralization,
and I would like to get back on to that topic. This government appears or gives
the impression that they are very much committed to decentralization and
bringing services closer to the people in the rural community. That is why it is difficult to understand why
the government would move in the direction of removing technicians from the
rural area, why they would privatize a service that is very much needed, a
service that is very difficult to get in some parts of the province.
As I said, there are some technicians who are
now operating basically to make money, and it is not in their best interest to provide
those services. The government was
providing a good service. At a time when
we have to diversify our economy, I am disappointed that the government has
moved in this direction. As I said, it
was not surprising that the government on one hand talked about
decentralization and then took away a service, because that is what they did
with many of their decentralization promises.
They gave their word on it, and then they broke that word.
There were many political decisions made on
the whole decentralization, and I do not think that it was done in the best interest
of all the people. The government made
the commitment that they would be decentralizing jobs to areas of high unemployment,
areas where services were really needed.
What we have in reality are jobs that have been moved into areas for political
purposes. You see decentralization into
Neepawa and Minnedosa, and jobs that were in
After the election, all of a sudden, the
equipment was not there, the technology was not there to move the jobs to
Dauphin. That applies to many of the other ones, but it is surprising that the
equipment and the technology are there to move jobs to Minnedosa and Neepawa.
Mr. Speaker, this government's record on
decentralization with rural Manitobans is not as good as it could be. It is tainted with political
interference. I would hope that the government,
as they proceed with their decentralization plan, as the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach) indicated yesterday in Estimates, is going
forward. They will really look at where
services are needed and where the unemployment rates are very high and then
move their projects to those areas.
*
(1630)
(Mr. Jack
Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I wish that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) would reconsider what he has done with the moves he has made to privatize
services to farmers and look again at how those technicians could be kept in
the rural community. Surely there must
be ways that we can encourage people to stay in the rural area and provide the
services that are needed, because in reality, that is part of the Department of
Agriculture's role, is to help farmers get new technology, bring the technology
to the farmers.
I am afraid that many of those services right
now that are supposed to be provided by the Department of Agriculture are not happening. One of the complaints that we have heard
about the Department of Agriculture is that staff, home economists and ag reps,
are spending an awful lot of their time working on GRIP and NISA, filling out
application forms and dealing with those things, rather than providing farmers
with the service.
There is a role for ag reps and there is a
role for home economists and that is to help farmers, to help with new technology,
provide services to the farming community, but I do not believe that the role
of ag reps is to spend their time filling out GRIP and NISA forms. There is a far more important role. I do not believe that when this government
talks about decentralization and diversifying the rural economy, when they encourage
farmers to diversify, they are sending a very good message out to the
community. First of all, I do not think
they are sending a good message out to the community when the agriculture staff
should be there helping farmers diversify or providing information and they are
spending their time on GRIP and NISA forms, and then I do not think they are
sending a very good message when they centralize or privatize a service that takes
away services from the farmers that are needed.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the other area that is
covered off in this is the increase in penalties, and that we have no
difficulty with. If the level of
penalties is not at a realistic level, then it should be brought in line with
what is realistic by today's values, so we have no difficulty with that.
But I wonder why the minister has chosen to
bring this in in this bill because it is my understanding that this could have been
done by regulation. It was not necessary
to bring it in as a bill, and there are other changes that government has made
by regulation. One that comes to mind is
the change of fees for Crown land leases for campers on lakes. Now, that is an increase and it is going to
cost more money. If the government could
bring that in by regulation, then I do not know why they could not bring this
fee change in by regulation as well.
Perhaps the minister can explain that when we get into further
discussion on this bill.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the other issue is the
removal of the residence and the removal of the reference to the Manitoba Semen
Distribution Centre. This service was
privatized last year, so it only makes sense that it be removed with this
legislation.
We want to question the minister as to the
impact of this privatization, not only the privatization of the Semen Centre, but
also the privatization of the drug centre, the Soil Testing Lab, and the Feed
Analysis Lab. All of these services have
been privatized. From discussions we had
last year, we know that people wanted to take over these services because there
was a good opportunity for them to make profit.
The government decided that rather than
provide service, they would let some private sector business make profit. But there is a risk when you do that. Are you going to provide the same service?
The minister said that the Semen Centre lost
money last year, that it was a loss of $5,000.
In reality, when you look at the service that was provided, is $5,000
that great a loss? Also, was that $5,000
worthwhile in providing service for farmers who are now not able to get that
service in some areas of the province?
As I said, there have been people who have indicated that the people who
now own the private company are not prepared to travel to some of the remote
areas. It is something that has to be
looked at. Is the service as adequate as
it was? The minister may not feel that
this is a problem, but I think that it is something that we have to address.
I guess the other things that we would want to
look are, how are these operations working right now? Are there the same number of jobs that were
there in the province? Where are these companies
operating from? Are they operating out
of
Mr. Acting Speaker, the other area that was
privatized was the Feed Analysis Lab.
There is some concern, as well, with the Feed Analysis Lab as to why the
prices of that went up so high in the last couple of years of operation. Why did they increase those fees that made it
unrealistic, that farmers had to then look for other sources? If they were interested in providing services
for the farmers, they would have provided them at a reasonable cost, rather
than jacking up the price to such a rate that privatization was‑‑[interjection]
When the minister first brought in the idea of
privatizing all of those four centres, we disagreed with the concept at that time,
and we still disagree with the concept.
We will look forward to discussing this more
thoroughly with the minister when we get into Estimates, but I want to say
that, again, I think that the biggest concern that we have is that the service
may not be adequately provided. Those
centres were playing an important role.
They were providing a service, and, Mr. Acting Speaker, we have to
really look at what we believe in. If we
believe in helping the rural economy diversify, if we believe that agriculture
is changing and that the role of the Department of Agriculture is to support
the rural community, then we should be prepared to also provide the services.
It is my belief that services to the rural
community have been decreased because now the whole philosophy, when we look at
private ownership versus providing service, I do not believe that the service
is as adequate as it was. This I say
from information that we have received from people who were using the services
before. Concern about the prices of
veterinarian supplies has also been raised, and we will raise that with the minister. I am sure that he has some studies that can
tell us whether there has been an increase in veterinarian supplies since the
privatization of the vet board.
Those will be very important to us to find out
whether the service is the same, whether there is an increase, because the minister
is well aware that the farm community is facing some very difficult times and
cannot afford to be picking up extra costs at this time. If there is a shift in pricing, we will want to
question the minister very closely on how he is going to address this. I hope that we will find that there has not
been a change and that there is adequate service there for the farming community.
*
(1640)
Just briefly then, I am disappointed that this
government has decided that it is not necessary for technicians to be in the remote
areas. I believe that there could have
been a way to entice people to stay in the rural community where services are most
needed. Perhaps we can discuss this more
thoroughly when we get into Estimates. [interjection]
Yes, the minister has indicated that he would
like to discuss fuel tax for the farmers, and that is something that perhaps we
can discuss when we get into the Agriculture Estimates. There are many things that we could
discuss. We could discuss the educational
taxes that are being offloaded onto the farming community by this government
even though they lead people to believe that farmers are going to pay less tax.
Farmers are getting their bills in many
municipalities and they are paying a higher education tax, they are paying more
money than they did. So there are issues
that we can discuss that are related to the farm community and costing the
farmers more money.
We can also talk about GRIP and NISA and the
changes that have been put in place and the mistrust that the community now has
with this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) because he changed the lentils
formula during the middle of a contract. That causes some concern for farmers,
Mr. Acting Speaker, because farmers in this province dealt with the Minister of
Agriculture in good faith. He said there
was a contract signed saying that all changes had to be made before March
15. The minister did not make those
changes ahead of time, he made them afterwards.
That makes people wonder what the next change this Minister of Agriculture
is going to make.
Does it mean that next spring when too much
red spring wheat is grown that he can change the formula as well? That is where he has lost credibility. When you put your word on the line, then you
should stand behind that word. It is
things like that that cause farmers to have some real concern in the community.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, we will be talking
about those issues and many other issues.
Another issue in GRIP is the disparities in certain parts of the
province and coverage for wildlife damage versus waterfowl damage. I know the minister is aware of the issue
that comes up along
So we will be raising all of those concerns
when we get into Estimates. As I said,
we will not be passing this bill at this time.
We will wait and perhaps after we get the information that we require,
then we will deal with it at that time.
With that, Mr. Acting Speaker, I close my remarks.
(Mr. Speaker in
the Chair)
Mr.
Speaker: As
previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the
honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Bill 10‑The
Mr.
Speaker: Is there
leave to revert to Bill 10? [Agreed]
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I rise to just take a few minutes
to close debate on Bill 10 and thank the Leader of the second opposition party
(Mrs. Carstairs) and the members of the opposition party for their comments as
it relates to Bill 10.
They expanded somewhat the debate on the bill. Initially the bill is intended to allow for
Manitoba Hydro to increase the amount of borrowing that they can carry out on
their own behalf to $500 million from the $150 million. It is my understanding that the monies that
are being requested, the borrowing authority that is being requested will not
be used for Conawapa construction.
However, the debate got into the whole question of Conawapa, which I
quite frankly appreciated. If it was a
little bit off what the specific intent of the bill was, it was still helpful I
believe to have had the discussion as it relates to Manitoba Hydro and their
activities.
I want to, as well, acknowledge the
compliments from the Leader of the second opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs) as
it relates to the Northern Flood Agreement and the activities that are being
carried out with our aboriginal communities, as we have had difficulties with
over the past few years in accomplishing some settlements. We, of course, I think have shown progress in
that area, and I thank the member for that acknowledgement.
I want to, as well, thank her for putting her
position forward, so that we can in fact, when Hydro comes before committee and
at other opportunities in this debate, that there can be a response, an
accurate response from Hydro. I do not intend
today, Mr. Speaker, to enter into the direct debate as it relates to the
Conawapa project. I want, though, to
make this comment and the word politics, the power of politics or the politics
of power, I guess as it was expressed, goes back a long ways. I may have put this on the record, but I
think it is worth putting on the record again as it relates to Manitoba Hydro.
There is no secret or any magic or anything
that has changed dramatically as it relates to Manitoba Hydro and the
development of this province. It has
been used as a generator of economic activity in a major way in
Mr. Speaker, let us start with a Premier known
as D. L. Campbell who was certainly not of the faith of the members opposite,
in fact‑‑not very much. D.
L. Campbell, a great Premier, introduced rural electrification for the people
of
The rural electrification in Manitoba was a
tremendous boost to the whole economy of this province, not only for the demand
side that was created in the generation of the electrical power, but of course
the absolute need for economic development in rural Manitoba which flowed from
the introduction of rural electrification.
For farm house purposes, for farm energy, for general small business,
everything related to economic development was able to be accomplished with the
introduction of rural electrification;
Followed by, Mr. Speaker, the Duff Roblin
government who had a greater vision of expanding it for additional economic activity
in this province. Not to say that the
vision was to be any greater than the previous one, but the ability for
Manitoba to generate volumes of power that could add to the overall economic activity
of Manitoba was extremely essential‑‑again, the foresightedness of
two Premiers who were extremely important to this province, again, in the
interests of Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba's economy, power of politics or the
politics of power, again, are part of it;
Followed in a short period of time by Walter
Weir, who really had no opportunity and length of time to change the mandate;
Followed by the Schreyer administration which
built and developed the Nelson River system, again with the objective of the
overall economics of the Hydro activities helping all of
Followed by the Lyon administration, Mr.
Speaker, which again continued on a planned basis to see the development take
place or continue to take place, based on more the principles of using the hydroelectric
power in Manitoba and also an interconnect between Manitoba and the western
power system through a western power grid, again using Manitoba Hydro as a
major generator of economic activity;
Followed by the Howard Pawley administration,
which, Mr. Speaker, again saw the opportunity for hydroelectric power to be used
for the overall economic generation of this province;
*
(1650)
Followed by, of course, the Filmon
administration which is currently here, which has done a couple of basic things
differently. They have added two new
processes: Number one, they have added
the process of having the complete environmental commission hearings, and,
secondly, the Public Utilities Board to make an assessment as to whether or not
the feasibility of a sale to
Well, we are in the process of the Clean
Environment Commission hearings right now.
We have had the hearings as related to the Public Utilities Board, Mr.
Speaker. Of course, we have seen some major
settlements or proposed settlements as they relate to our aboriginal
communities.
The Liberal Leader (Mrs. Carstairs)‑‑I
will get into a debate with her over the next period of time, as the
opportunities permit, to say where I disagree with her. She raises the whole question of starting a
training program today for the Conawapa project. To start a program today for training would
be‑‑I would then come under criticism from the Liberal Party to
say, well, why are you having environmental hearings; why are you doing all these
things, developing training when you have not even got a permit or a licence to
proceed with the project?
I do not think she can have it both ways. I think we have to clarify those points, as
we have to clarify some other points, and again I am prepared to do that as
this debate proceeds.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the power, the
political power that we are talking about‑‑all Premiers whom I have
referred to have had the mandate from the people of Manitoba to proceed in the
development of Manitoba Hydro to use it, yes, in Manitoba, to export it, to
make a profit for the people of Manitoba, is in the people's interests.
I believe that mandate has carried forward to
the Filmon administration, and I believe the public are quite prepared, Mr. Speaker,
particularly during times of tough economic difficulties in our society,
shortage of job opportunities where this will create tremendous job
opportunities, create a good bottom‑line profit for the people of Manitoba,
do it under the regulatory authority of the Clean Environment Commission,
having the Public Utilities Board pass its judgment. I believe the government and Manitoba Hydro
are on the right path.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to future debate
as it relates to this whole issue, and I hope that the Leader of the Second Opposition
(Mrs. Carstairs), particularly, will take a look at the history of the
development of Manitoba Hydro as it relates to the politics of power, if that
is what the terminology is. It is important
to this province. It is important to the
people today and to the future of this province.
We intend, Mr. Speaker, to deal with it
responsibly and properly on behalf of the people of this province.
I thank members for their contribution on Bill
10 and look forward to its further discussion in committee and its final passage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the
House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 10, The Manitoba Hydro
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Agreed]
Bill 15‑The Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger), Bill 15, The Highway
Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed]
Bill 20‑The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach),
Bill 20, The Municipal Assessment Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'evaluation municipale, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
[Agreed]
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 20
because of a number of concerns that my caucus has with the whole assessment
process as it is being conducted in the
When we originally dealt with assessment
legislation under the former ministry, we raised the issue then of why we had
to go with assessments on a three‑year time frame. We used
At that time, it was argued that it would be
too complex and too difficult to put into place an assessment system that was yearly. We do not agree with that argument, but that
was the will of the government at that particular time.
We were then assured that the assessment would
be put on a regular basis, and it would take place every three years. Well, lo and behold, we are not two years
into that process, and we are being informed by the government that they cannot
quite do the assessment in 1993, and it must be postponed till 1994. Well, interestingly enough, it is not because
the assessments are not going to be possible.
It is because the government, for reasons known only to the government,
has decided that they cannot put the assessment in 1993, and they want to
further delay it.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the window
of opportunity for an election campaign could just possibly be the spring of 1994,
and municipal assessments of course would not go out at that particular point
in time and would not go out until later, perhaps after the election was
over. I would like to think that this
was not the rationale for why the government was doing this, but I have to
suggest that we have a certain question in our mind as to the political
motivation of this government at the particular time.
What we have however is a far more serious
concern, the rights which we believe will be removed and to some degree were already
removed in Bill 79, and that is the right to appeal on current market
value. That is our fundamental
disagreement with this.
I would like to give a very specific
example. We have a situation with the
Campbell Soup factory in
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
Point of Order
Hon.
Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
Perhaps just to enlighten the Leader of the
third party to clarify a matter, Mr. Speaker, Bill 20 that is before the House does
not have any section dealing with the rights of appeal to farmers; therefore, I
just thought I should clarify that for the member's sake.
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable minister does not
have a point of order.
* *
*
Mrs.
Carstairs: I am
very aware of what Bill 20 does not have. What I am suggesting is what Bill 20
should have.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 20 does not correct a
failure of Bill 79. The failure‑‑[interjection] Yes, but because we
support legislation‑‑this is the naivete of the minister. You know, it is wonderful. I am so glad he has moved out of Education
because we could not stand that kind of naivete, that you do not ever change
anything when you discover it has a fault.
You just toe the party line and you say, that is the way it has been;
that is the way it has to be forever and ever and ever.
The value of being in this Legislature is that
you can make things better. When you
realize and recognize that perhaps something has not been dealt with as
thoroughly as it could have been dealt with, you make the necessary
changes. There is nothing wrong with
doing that. There is nothing wrong with admitting
that perhaps there was a mistake in the original bill and that a further change
could be made.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a flip‑flop because
Bill 79 did not deal with this issue effectively. There are many pieces of legislation‑‑and
I would suggest that the government look at the number of bills they have
introduced in this session that are amendments to existing legislation‑‑not
new legislation, amendments. Why do you
introduce an amendment? Well, it may come
as a remarkable thought to the minister responsible for Rural Development, but
you amend a bill because you found a flaw.
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. This bill will remain standing
in the name of the honourable Leader of the second opposition party (Mrs.
Carstairs) and the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
*
(1700)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr.
Speaker: The hour
being 5 p.m., it is time for Private Members' Business.
ADDRESS FOR PAPERS REFERRED FOR DEBATE
Mr.
Speaker: On the
motion of the honourable member for
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I would like permission to speak on this Bill
91.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly important bill
that we are dealing with today, and I would appreciate it if all members, including
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), who has a lot of responsibility to deal
with this bill, would take this issue seriously, and do what he promised to do
a couple of years ago when this bill was passed in this Legislature, and that
was to have some way to deal with the problem of solvent sniffing.
I remember when this bill was initially
passed, when there was a minority government, when the government of the day
was a minority government and the current opposition Health critic was part of
this minority situation, and she felt like she had accomplished something.
[interjection] Yes, I remember, because I was in the caucus at that time. The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is
correct. I was not elected; I was a
party activist. I was visiting. I was
not here as an MLA.
I remember the sense of satisfaction that the
member for
This is an important bill, and the government
would I think do well to go back and review its own comments when dealing with the
bill, its own promises that it made in Question Period, at the various public
hearings that were held, to have some way of dealing with the problem of
sniffing. Throughout all of that debate,
people agreed this was not going to be the complete answer. It was not going to solve all the problems,
but it would be a step in the right direction. [interjection] Now, as the member
for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) seems to suggest, the problem is the Minister of
Health's, with his negligence in not proclaiming this bill.
I have seen the effects of what sniff can
do. I can recall a few times when I have
been walking, particularly over the
The City of
It has been suggested to me that there is a
lobby that is developing by some stores.
I would hate to think that the government is caving in to a lobby of
stores that would retail and sell the kind of solvents that this bill would
deal with, because the stores would have to have a better system of monitoring. There might be some expenses on their part
for ensuring that these kinds of solvents are no longer in reach of particularly
young people, and because there would be these kind of requirements of them
that they would be encouraging the government to not pass this bill. I would hate to think that is true, as some
people have suggested to me, and I am sure others on our side of the House, if
that is the case with this bill.
So I hope that the government is not caving in
to that kind of a lobby, but we might believe that to be case, because they have
not given us any other legitimate reason for why this bill cannot be
proclaimed. There has been some
reference to that they have a legal opinion that suggests that it is not
enforceable, but yet they have not been willing to table that legal opinion.
Until they do that, I guess we are able to
agree with those who suggest that they have been under some influence by
merchants who do not want to see this legislation pass because it would make
their job more difficult and would give them some responsibility for refusing
to sell solvents in situations where it is going to be misused, particularly
with children.
The other thing that is interesting, when we
are dealing with this bill, is to ask the question, what happened to this government's
self‑proclaimed war on drugs? This
bill is a concrete step that would be part of that war on drugs, and the government
is ignoring the opportunity to follow through on its promise and it has not come
up with any alternatives. It has not come
up with any alternatives to deal with the problem of sniffing, and I would
suggest that it is irresponsible in that way to basically be throwing up its
hands, saying, yes, there is a problem out there, unlike the member for St.
Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) who saw the problem and took it upon herself
to work with the community, to work with various groups and individuals and
develop this piece of legislation to see the problem and to try and do
something about it.
This government admits that there is a
problem. They are aware, and yet they
will stand to the side and throw up their hands and say, well, we cannot do
anything about it, and we will just have to leave this piece of
legislation. They refuse to proclaim it
and will stand behind this argument that they have some mysterious legal
opinion that is advising them that it is not possible to enforce this piece of
legislation.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to
conclude by encouraging the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to go back and take
this matter under consideration again, to consult once again with the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae). The Minister of
Justice has put on record, as the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has, that
way back in 1990 there was a need for this legislation. They are on record as saying that. I would encourage the members opposite to
keep their promise and to proclaim Bill 91 and go from there to try and deal
with the other mechanisms to try and help people who, out of desperation that I
am sure many of us find hard to understand, enter into this practice of
sniffing glue and solvents.
(Mr. Ben
Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I would like to see that the minister would
take this seriously and would, as I had said, reconsider his own comments and
his own promise about the need for this kind of legislation. With that, Mr.
Acting Speaker, thank you very much.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik).
*
(1710)
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Mr.
Jack Penner (Emerson):
Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for St.
Vital (Mrs. Render),
WHEREAS the economic growth of rural
communities means a more stable community with more opportunities for young
people to find employment close to home; and
WHEREAS Manitobans will be able to invest in
the economic growth of their own communities through the new Rural Development Bond
Program; and
WHEREAS the bond program includes a provincial
government guarantee of investments in rural development bond corporations; and
WHEREAS the bond corporations will be able to
invest in local commercially viable projects, such as manufacturing,
processing, tourism, export service industries, environmental industries, as well
as commercial water and gas development.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba commend the government for initiating the Rural Development
Bond Program.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Penner: Mr.
Acting Speaker, it certainly gives me pleasure today to rise on an issue that I
feel is of extreme importance to all of Manitobans. We realize, of course, that investment in commercial
ventures is the mainstay of our economy in this province, whether it is in
rural Manitoba or whether it is in any of the large number of some larger, some
smaller urban communities in this province.
Employment initiatives are of course generated by these kinds of
investment.
We also realize that virtually 60 cents out of
every dollar that is spent in rural Manitoba, be it on industrial development, be
it in manufacturing, be it on virtually any other initiatives that you can
think of, ends up in one or two of the larger commercial centres in this
province.
The diversity of our province, not only in
manufacturing but in agriculture production, the key base resource element of
our province is well known and need not be commented on. However, we do have a problem in many of our
rural communities, and that is that the growth has either become stagnant or
has, in many cases, become regressive.
Therefore it is important that we recognize, as a government, and take
initiatives to implement policy and direction that will clearly support the
growth that is needed in rural
Therefore, the Rural Development bond program,
I believe, is going to be one of the programs that is going to be the cornerstone
of turning the population decline around in many of these communities. I say many of these communities, because not all
communities will take the initiative that is required to generate, first of
all, the interest in putting together a pool of money to invest in business
ventures, be it manufacturing, be it tourism, be it even infrastructure, that
is required to generate the economic flow that will create growth and of course
stability.
When one looks at some of the more successful
communities in the province, some of the growth areas in the province, one recognizes
that it has largely been the initiative very often of a small group of people,
very often an individual who has been the spark plug that has created the kind
of growth that some of these communities have experienced.
I very often compare the initiatives that have
encouraged this growth in some of the communities to an engine. An engine of course has many parts, but until
you put all those parts together and provide the one key element to give it
life, nothing happens. But when you add
the spark plug, when you turn the spark plug into the block and you give it
fuel, the engine starts turning and firing and generating power.
Similarly, Mr. Acting Speaker, these Grow
Bonds, I believe, will be the fuel that can be used by those individuals who
are the spark plugs in a given community who will generate the interest to
provide the economic incentives to cause that growth in employment initiatives.
The idea for a Rural Development bond, or a
Grow Bond was not a new idea. It was
really an assimilation of ideas that had been used by various other
jurisdictions, some provinces, and some aspects of it put together as a vehicle
that will help us create an investment capital fund that will encourage
investors, be they from within the community or be they from outside of the
country even, to encourage them to come into this province to create that industrial
development.
Many of the communities in
This Grow Bond pool of money, in my view, will
be the start of many such initiatives in many of our communities in rural
*
(1720)
Number one, they need to build a capital
structure or a physical structure that requires a large amount of capital. Once they have the physical structure in
place, they need to start putting equipment into this facility that can
actually start manufacturing stuff. Once
you start manufacturing, you need fairly large inventories in order to be able
to start exporting or marketing. By the
time you have got these three steps in place, you have used an awful lot of
money that you are paying an ongoing amount of interest on.
This Rural Development Bond initiative can put
together that money without incurring large amounts of interest payable before you
start turning a profit. That is really
the essence of the whole idea, Mr. Acting Speaker, behind this encouraging
factor. That is why the provincial government will take upon itself the guarantee
of that initial investment in the various ventures that individuals might want
to invest in.
It will do another thing. It will create, I believe, an educational
process within our population which is sometimes hesitantly used by some people
but not widely used by many, that is that it will encourage, teach people how
to invest in, be it local ventures or other ventures, and maybe use the stock
market system to a much greater degree to enhance our whole economic situation
and create an investment mode, an investment attitude and climate in this
province.
That is really what we need to start
regenerating the growth and stimulate our economy back into action. I believe that the bond program plus the REDI
program that the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) announced only
very shortly, combining the two elements will be a tremendous vehicle to allow
that kind of growth to take shape in rural
It will create the encouragement to many
people in rural
Tourism is another industry that I think has
some tremendous potential in this province, yet we need the infrastructure for tourism. We need good facilities so that when other
people come to visit us, they can feel comfortable in and warm in and feel protected
in. The tremendous number of natural
resources that we have, our lakes, our rivers, our streams, our wildlife, our geographic
locations and, yes, even our agricultural areas, lend tremendous beauty and
could be used as a main attraction area if we only allowed ourselves to invest
in our economy through an investment vehicle such as we have in place now.
This is something that is dramatically
new. This is something that no other
government in this province has dared do before. I very often hear lots of bafflegab from the
opposition suggesting that we are stagnant in our approach. Well, I would suggest to my honourable
friends opposite that they had some 15 years to initiate some of these kinds of
vehicles that would in fact encourage the growth in our province, that we might
not have hit the economic downturn that we now have faced over the last four
years and are continuing to face.
It is my belief, Mr. Acting Speaker, that
initiating these kinds of fundamental programs that fundamentally will change
how we think about investing, how we think about putting our money where our
mouth is, in the long term, will get us down the road. It is that mental
attitude that people in this province wanted to change, and that is why they
elected a different group of people with a different kind of thinking back into
power again in this province because people in
I believe that this program, together with a
number of the other initiatives that we have started, that we have announced, plus
some other ones that I believe will be forthcoming‑‑because we do
have a tremendous number of people on this side of the House who are
innovators, who are realists and who are able to be the kind of thinkers that
put new programs in place. That is what
people elected us to do.
Regardless of the kind of rhetoric that we
have seen from the opposition members over the last number of years criticizing
virtually everything that we have done, whether it be in Health, whether it be
in Transportation, whether it be in Agriculture or whether it be in
developmental kind of mechanisms and issues that we brought forward, they are
critical, yet we are not looking back.
We are looking forward. We are
looking forward to the opportunities. We
are looking forward to the positive attitudes that Manitobans have, and we
welcome the investments that rural Manitobans will make in their own
communities to generate the dynamic economy that this province and the people
of this province so richly deserve.
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
I am a little bit disappointed in the
resolution that this member has brought forward in that he has not put more
strength into it, more support. Rather
than just flattering the government for a program that he has brought in, why
has he not brought in a resolution that is going to encourage his colleagues the
members of cabinet to make a real commitment to rural Manitoba? When we look at the Grow Bond program, and as
I said, Mr. Acting Speaker, we have supported the Grow Bond program. We want to see it go forward, and we wish
that there would be successes, but the Grow Bond program is not enough. The member has stated that we want to give
our young people an opportunity to be employed close to their homes. We want to keep our young people in this
province. Definitely we do.
All of us are very concerned with what is
happening in rural
Government has to do more. Government has to be prepared to invest in
the rural communities as well. It is not
enough to say, well, yes, here you people are in rural Manitoba, we are going
to give you the opportunity to invest your money, but on the other hand,
government is going to cut back on the supports, the services.
The member across the way shakes his head, but
there have been cutbacks. When we look
at regional development corporations, regional development corporations have
had their funding cut. There is an
additional corporation now, but the funding is at a lower level than it was
when the NDP was in power. The numbers
were higher then than they are now.
Regional development corporations are part of
community growth. This government,
members of the government, have indicated at some point that regional
development corporations are a good thing and that they do support them, but in
reality, they have cut back the funding.
It is at a lower level than it was when the NDP was in power, and if you
take inflation into consideration, there is not a commitment on this
government's part to see growth. [interjection] The minister says it is a $10 million
commitment. A commitment of what? Ten million dollars. But there has to be a
commitment to have other services.
*
(1730)
The government has to put in place supports
for communities. The minister says this gives the rural communities an
opportunity to invest. What about those
communities that do not have the resources?
There are many communities in this province that do not have
resources. There are very poor people in
many communities that have very high unemployment rates, very little money. There are those cases where the Grow Bonds
will not work and government has to show some leadership. [interjection]
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) says,
what would we suggest? In communities
where there is very high unemployment and people who want to work, the
government should look at suggestions that have come from those
communities. The government should look
at suggestions that have come from those communities because they are investing
millions of dollars into welfare, social assistance. People want to work. [interjection] The
minister talks about roads and bridges.
There is a lot more that can be done in rural communities besides roads
and bridges. I would hope that he is saying that roads and bridges are not all that
is going to come out of Rural Development bonds.
There are serious concerns in rural
communities. Many people are unemployed,
and many young people want to come back to their roots. They want to live in rural communities, but
this government is not prepared to invest fully, I believe. Mr. Acting Speaker, there are many places
that the government can invest. There
are many ways that the government can treat rural Manitobans more fairly than
they have.
One of the areas where this government has not
treated rural
If they were sincerely committed to rural
Manitobans, and if they were sincere about economic growth in all communities, particularly
those with high unemployment, they would have looked at moving jobs to areas
that needed the economic growth. The member
knows that there are many, many communities that could have benefitted from
benefited from decentralization that did not benefit from it. They happened to all fall very far south‑‑in
the southern part of the province. Then
when we have the Grow Bond office. Where
did it go? To the southern part of the province.
If we want to have economic growth, we have to
look at all parts of the province and treat all people fairly. Government has to be prepared to put its fair
share in as well, because it all cannot be done by investment from rural
Manitobans. The government has to be
prepared to invest as well.
The member said that there are many
areas. I have to agree with him that
there are areas in Natural Resources that we could diversify and get the jobs
into our community. I agree with him on
that, but again, I do not agree it can only be done with Grow Bonds. There have to be other things. It is only one tool, but our government is
taking away other tools, and the government has to, I believe, be prepared to
invest as well.
When you take away opportunities‑‑and
I want to go back to my constituency.
Government took away an opportunity in Swan River when they shut down
the wafer board plant and brought in Repap, took away funds that the community
had worked very hard to get through western diversification. In fact, our Member of Parliament, whom
members of government are well acquainted with, Brian White, was quite
surprised that Repap was established when he had just announced money from
Western Diversification for development in Swan River.
So what do we have in
As I say, there is a role, but the government
has to address very seriously the problem of our declining rural population. There
are parts of the province that have been very successful in attracting people
back to their community, but we have to look more broadly than what is
happening in southern
I give the people in southern
The government must be prepared to invest in
jobs. That is not happening. I do not believe that Grow Bonds will create enough
jobs to help sustain our rural community.
It will take more.
The government also has to be prepared to
invest in our young people, in education of our young people so they can take
on these jobs when they become available, but at the present time, education is
becoming very difficult to get for many people. When we see the cutbacks at
community colleges, when we see university fees increasing, it makes it very
difficult for our young people to get the education that is required.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the member also spoke
about tourism, and I do believe that tourism is one of our most important
industries that can grow right now, and we have to do a lot of work. Unfortunately,
I cannot praise this government for what they have done in tourism. I recently spoke to some people who were at a
trade show in the
As far as rural bonds go to promote tourism, I
am not sure. The member is saying that we can improve our infrastructure to help
tourism. We can do roads. We can enhance our communities to attract
tourists. It is going to take a lot more
to attract tourism, and it is going to take promotion from government.
The other thing that is included in things
that can be done with Grow Bonds, we talked about bringing gas development and
I really question that. Does this member
really believe that there is enough money in this Grow Bond program that can
finance bringing natural gas into the community? When we raised the issue with the Minister of
Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) about gasification of communities, he talked
about what an expensive project this was, and it is an expensive project.
Communities need gas in order that they may
grow and attract industry, but it is going to take much more than Grow Bonds to
do it. It is going to take a commitment
from government that they want to see rural communities grow, that they want to
see growth. It goes far beyond the Grow
Bonds. There are other things, and that
is why I am disappointed that the member did not bring in a stronger resolution
that would encourage government also to invest in the rural community.
For that reason, Mr. Acting Speaker, I am
going to move an amendment to this resolution, not as criticism, because we
would support the resolution. However,
we are offering an amendment that will strengthen the resolution.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for
the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans),
THAT the Resolution be amended by deleting all
the words after the first "WHEREAS" clause and substituting the
following:
WHEREAS there has been an absolute drop in
rural population; and
WHEREAS the government has failed to provide
for rural economic development by cutting support for rural economic development
corporations; and
WHEREAS the Rural Development Bond Program
will not provide sufficient job creation to offset the effects of the recession
unless additional funds are made available.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Legislative
Assembly request the government of
*
(1740)
Point of Order
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am speaking as the
deputy government House leader, and I wanted to comment on the amendment that
the member has moved‑‑
An
Honourable Member:
On a point of order.
Mr.
Praznik: Yes,
speaking on a point of order. My point
is that I would ask the Chair to have a look obviously in great detail at this
particular amendment. I would suggest
that the member is getting very close to the prohibition which does not allow
for an amendment that requires the government to spend money.
I admit that there is use of the word, I
believe, "consideration," but I would have you, Sir, examine the amendment,
because I believe that it is moving very close to the line requiring the
government to expend money by its tone, by its calls and the conclusion that it
draws.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): The honourable Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik) did not have a point of order.
* *
*
Motion
agreed to.
Mr.
Penner: I must
rise to put a few brief comments on the record on the resolution. I stood with great anticipation, Mr. Acting
Speaker, waiting for some concrete, firm suggestions on how to improve the
viability and the employment opportunities in many of the so‑called
communities, so‑called have‑not communities in this province. Yet I heard the criticism from the honourable
member for
That has been the problem with the previous
administration all along. That is why
this province is in the kind of dire straits that we are trying to jack it out
of because they were bereft of any real concrete suggestions and/or ideas on
how to.
We have, Mr. Acting Speaker, over the last
couple of years, put in a significant number of economic initiatives that are
in fact creating jobs. Let me give you a
few. We have increased our Highways
budget by some $30‑odd million annually to create infrastructure and
create jobs. We have increased our
spending on water projects to supply communities with water‑‑yes,
even in the honourable member for
We are expending significant amounts of money
trying to search out ways in which to enhance the opportunities for industrial
development in many of our smaller communities.
Let me give you another thing.
The infrastructure is of key importance to many of our smaller rural
communities. We are expending some $800
million ensuring that we will have a proper communications process in place in
this province by expanding our telephone services in this province.
Then we have proposed that we will probably
start one of the biggest employment opportunities that this province has seen
for many years and that is the Conawapa project. Yet, from the opposition, we hear nothing but
criticism and question as to whether this is the right time.
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, let me say this to
you, that I do not think that there has ever been a more opportune time than today
to start generating this economic activity in northern Manitoba because, as the
honourable member for Swan River has said, there are many communities in
northern Manitoba that do need employment.
These initiatives that we have started will certainly create that
employment in rural and northern
She talks about Repap. Who was opposed to the development of Repap? It was the members opposite that continually
condemned and criticized for encouraging a new company to come into
If it was not for private initiative and
investment by a large corporation, such as Repap, in all likelihood we would by
now have faced some dire consequences or huge investments out of taxpayers, out
of our coffers of government to support the industry that was previously there.
Natural gas‑‑do I believe we can,
in fact, use private investment to bring natural gas into some of our
communities? Yes, I do. I believe that
people have the will to put together or to join together to form smaller
corporations, to invest in themselves, to create little companies that will in
fact distribute and build the infrastructures of natural gas pipelines, and you
can use the Grow Bonds to form these little corporations.
Can we use the Grow Bonds? The Grow Bonds have never been intended to be
the cure‑all and end‑all and the be‑all for investment in
rural
*
(1750)
It need not always be taxpayers' dollars, but
the opposition members have continually harped on the fact that it must be generated
by tax, generated by tax, and pumped into.
Well, very often, Mr. Acting Speaker, when you put a pipe into a dry
well you get nothing but hot air, and I suspect that is all we are hearing so
far from the opposition benches. I would
welcome some real input into policy development, into economic generation type of
initiatives, and some real firm suggestions from the opposition, because by
working together I believe we can bring this economy back on track again.
Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am delighted to add a
few comments to this resolution which I commend the member for Emerson (Mr.
Penner) for bringing before the House at this time.
I am not really surprised at the knee‑jerk
reaction from the socialist members opposite, whose only answer is more
taxpayers' money. That is the gist of
her amendment. It has to be taxpayers'
money, and I am a little disappointed in the honourable member for
Furthermore, anybody who has sat in this
House, without bringing the question of ideology, knows that if there are extra
dollars around, they are going to go into our social services. Where do you
spend 90 percent, 95 percent, no, 99 percent of your time in this House
questioning members of this government?
It is on the maintenance of our social programs, whether it is Health, whether
it is Education, whether it is Family Services.
We understand that. We accept
those priorities.
I congratulate my government, the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), in
searching out these particular mechanisms that fit so well within the
Conservative philosophy, because we believe that the function of government is
to provide the wherewithal, to provide the climate, to provide the opportunity
for individual Manitobans to make their decisions. If the climate is there, the decisions will
benefit the collective whole.
There are things that we have to do. Honourable members do not understand some of
the things that my colleague from Emerson (Mr. Penner) just mentioned. Sometimes putting an extra two inches, three
inches on a road makes an industry viable in rural Manitoba, because then a
trucker can move with a 140,000 pound load instead of a 70,000 pound load. That may be just the difference between
keeping 40 or 50 people employed in rural
Mr. Acting Speaker, the provision of water
happens to be very important to the very things that we are talking about in
this resolution. I would look forward
from honourable members opposite not to ally themselves with the doom sayers
who deny us the prudent use of God‑given resources that we have in this province,
and water is one of them.
It has to be done with caution, it has to be
done with care, but we can, Mr. Acting Speaker‑‑and I say this
immodestly because I happen to have a great respect for the creator that
created all our resources. From time to
time I am honest and say, mankind, humble and as mistaken as we are sometimes,
can make improvements on nature. We can
divert a little bit of water somewhere that provides abundant crops, that
provides jobs opportunities or that provides better recreational opportunities.
The honourable member for
We are, for instance, providing quite
adequately to
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is this mode that I
want to draw a bit of attention to, because it does spell the difference
between a Conservative philosophy, a Conservative government, and a socialist
government.
Years ago, the same philosophy that prompted a
then Conservative government to bring these kinds of tools that my colleague
from Emerson (Mr. Penner) speaks about to help agriculture is to bring about a
little bit of stability in agriculture and introduce a credit corporation,
Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation.
Not that there were not lending agencies then
in the late '50s or in the early '60s.
The banks were there. The credit unions
were there, but it was felt that agriculture was not always getting a fair
shake in terms of consideration for available credit dollars. So a Conservative government‑‑not
a socialist government, Conservative government‑‑established a Crown‑owned
credit operation known as the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation which
has served us well to this day.
Now mind you, I grieve for my current Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) who is still trying to clean up some of the mess that
the honourable socialist friends made of that corporation when they had
it. Every week, just about, we bring
into cabinet to get rid of their resolution to the farm problems which was to buy
the land and lease it back to create service out of
Mr. Acting Speaker, it was the same way that
another agency to help agriculture in rural
If we use our natural resources in a prudent
and in a cautious way, whether it is our trees, whether it is our lakes, whether
it is our land, we can improve the economic well‑being of all Manitobans
and future Manitobans to come. The Grow
Bonds program that we are talking about here in this resolution is one program
that will make that come along a little easier.
It will bring about a degree of co‑operation within smaller rural communities. Business people, individuals, will see an opportunity,
and maybe rather than investing in it their monies‑‑and there is
money around. We see that demonstrated,
for instance, every time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) lays out another
Hydro bond. All of a sudden 300 million,
400 million
The honourable member for
Mr. Acting Speaker, I have no doubt at all
that this program will succeed, and I leave you with one parting thought. In the year 2006, when this government likely
will face the possibility of making‑‑
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please.
The hour being 6 p.m., I am interrupting proceedings according to the rules. When this matter is again before the House
the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) will have seven minutes
remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned
and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).